Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
90
Introduction
Animals are ubiquitous in Algonquian oral
traditions in the Northeast, often depicted as transformational
beings with special qualities and powers,
and with the spirit of the slain animal seen as
determining the success of future hunts (Betts et al.
2012, Hornborg 2008, Rand 1971, Tanner 1979).
Special qualities often extended to the bones of the
animals and influenced how they were processed.
Here we attempt to distinguish between symbolic
and utilitarian treatments of bone. More specifically,
we identify ways in which different species were
treated differently in different contexts. This approach
is particularly appropriate for our research on
Machias Bay (Fig. 1) where we are working with the
Passamaquoddy Tribal Historic Preservation Office
to better understand the area’s unusual concentration
of petroglyphs (Hedden 1996, 2004; Soctomah
2009). While petroglyphs may automatically be
classified as symbolic, their intended use may have
been quite practical. In either case, we are interested
in why some animals are portrayed and others are
not in different contexts. Shell-midden archaeology
provides an exceptional opportunity for addressing
these kinds of questions. We present 3 cases from recent
excavations and analyses of two eastern Maine
shell middens, including: (1) special disposal of gray
seal bone (Ingraham et al. 2016), (2) retention of
mandibles and maxilla of the extinct sea mink, and
(3) inclusion of mandibles and skulls in domestic or
ritual structures. The findings are preliminary but are
presented here to highlight testable patterns as well
as the opportunities and difficulties involved.
Background
Ethnographic examples of specialized animal
processing for the purpose of respecting the spirit of
the animal are widespread and varied. These include
burning bones to keep them from being eaten by
dogs (Sanger 2003:31, Thwaites 1896:210), returning
aquatic animal bones to the river or sea (Sanger
2003:31, Soctomah 2002:171, Speck 1935a:23),
and placing bones of terrestrial animals in trees or
containers or on platforms (Preston 1964:144; Smith
2011:80;Tanner 1979:153, 172). Ritual activities
involving animal remains also include divination
practices such as scapulimancy, which entails reading
the cracks of a burned scapula or other bones to
predict good hunting locations (Speck 1935b:127,
Tanner 1979:108). Selected bones can serve as hunting
talismans or personal amulets (Speck 1935b:30,
Tanner 1979:141). Animal skulls and claws may be
retained as parts of animal skin on clothing, in or as
an element of medicine bundles, or for badges of office
(Fox and Molto 1994, Willoughby 1905).
The case for special treatment of animal bone
is strengthened by its broad cultural occurrence,
providing a general context for behaviors that contrast
with more utilitarian expectations in modern
industrial societies (Trigger 2006:526, Viveiros
de Castro 1998). All of these practices have counterparts
among the Wabanaki tribes of Maine and
the Canadian Maritimes, including the Penobscot,
Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Micmac (Wabanaki
Program of the American Friends Service Committee
2002) which supports their applicability here
(Ingraham et al. 2016, Le Clercq 1910:226, Sanger
2003, Smith 1954:36, Soctomah 2002:171, Speck
1935a, Whitehead 1991:17).
The general practice of special treatment of
animal bones is abundantly documented, and special
treatments of some species are well recorded, but
particular treatments of many bone elements will
have to be uncovered from the archaeological record.
With so broad a record and so many potential uses,
it follows that bone symbolism may be a prominent
part of well-preserved faunal assemblages in coastal
Maritime Culture Patterns and Animal Symbolism in Eastern Maine
Brian S. Robinson1,† and A. Sky Heller1,*
Abstract - Coastal and maritime environments provide a whole series of environmental and geographical factors that are
integrated into our understanding of past cultural landscapes. These include both advantageous factors such as enhanced
bone preservation associated with shell, as well as more deleterious factors such as site loss from sea-level rise. Good
preservation can provide opportunities to explore archaeologically the ritual aspects of human–animal relationships—distinguished
from more utilitarian aspects of subsistence processing—for which substantial records of oral traditions and
beliefs exist. Here we focus on examples from recent excavations on Machias Bay and Frenchman Bay in Maine, spanning
4000 years.
North American East Coast Shell Midden Research
Journal of the North Atlantic
15677 South Steven Hall, Orono, ME 04469. †Deceased. *Corresponding author - a.sky.heller@gmail.com.
2017 Special Volume 10:90–104
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
91
shell middens. However, with the explicit search
for such practices, there are all too many suspicious
associations and possibilities. The problem lies in
finding multiple cases with sufficiently convincing
contexts to correctly identify practices that range
from individual variation to regional traditions.
One challenge in identifying the symbolic aspects
of faunal remains lies in understanding how
systematic or pervasive different symbolic usages
might be. Speck (1935b: 217) recorded for the Montagnais
or Innu of Quebec that removing the hide
of a beaver with a skinning tool made of bear bone
was a “religious obligation”; this practice could represent
a powerful regional cultural pattern. Sanger
(2003:29) proposed that processing bone to avoid
disrespectful scavenging by dogs may have operated
at the scale of “a deep-seated, interior/coastal divide
that extends to the basic cosmological relationship
between humans and prey.” At an even larger scale,
it has been proposed for the Gulf of Maine Archaic
tradition of New England and Maritime Canada that
the absence of chipped-stone projectile points, combined
with cremation of bone tools in primary burial
rituals, might represent widespread religious obligations
regarding the appropriate material for killing
game (Robinson and Ort 2011). Utilitarian explanations
may fail to explain such prevalent aspects of
the cultural record.
Cultural norms can be powerful motivators,
while the degree to which the ideal is followed in
practice may be highly variable (Trigger 1995:454).
Father Le Jeune (Thwaites 1896:210) recorded in
1634 the complex practices of the Montagnais of
Quebec, with regard to bone disposal:
The Savages do not throw to the dogs the
bones of female Beavers and Porcupines,—at
least, certain specified bones; in short, they are
very careful that the dogs do not eat any bones
of birds and of other animals which are taken
in the net, otherwise they will take no more
except with incomparable difficulties. Yet
they make a thousand exceptions to this rule,
for it does not matter if the vertebrae or rump
of these animals be given to the dogs, but the
rest must be thrown into the fire. Yet, as to the
Beaver which has been taken in a trap, it is best
to throw its bones into a river. It is remarkable
how they gather and collect these bones, and
preserve them with so much care.
Further complicating things, while the dichotomy
between utilitarian (e.g.,subsistence, tool
production) and more symbolic (or ritual) uses of
bone can serve as an important distinction in grouping
causal factors, it can be quite inappropriate to
define mutually exclusive domains where they are in
fact diverse and overlapping. For similar reasons, we
do not advocate for a particular theoretical position,
certainly not between the materialist/idealist dichotomies
of the past, but rather accept the essential and
often complementary tensions between perspectives
that investigate both general and historical processes
(Sassaman and Holly 2011:5, VanPool and VanPool
2003:3). Animal bones can obviously represent both
subsistence and ritual contexts (Trigger 1995:451),
but ferreting out different relationships requires recognition
of multiple contexts, sufficient distinctiveness
in the archaeological record, the means to test
between alternate scenarios at different scales, and
recognition of when these scenarios may be overlapping
and interdependent.
One way of identifying ritual usages is to contrast
species representations between domestic and
mortuary contexts (Betts et al. 2012, Holt 1996). In
the modern dichotomy between utility and symbolism,
intentional inclusion within mortuary contexts
almost automatically qualifies animal remains as
ritual or symbolic, even if intended as food for the
dead. Among examples from Newfoundland and Canadian
Maritimes are the abundance of bird and mammal
bones buried in the Late Archaic period Port au
Choix cemetery (Tuck 1976), the prominence of bird
skulls in graves of the recent Beothuk (Kristensen
2010:43), and inclusion of fossil and recent shark
teeth in mortuary contexts (Betts et al. 2012).
This paper focuses on another domain for symbolic
usage: identifying repetitive patterns in domestic
contexts that are structured differently from
those of biological, subsistence, or manufacturing
requirements. Despite potential overlap among these
analytical categories, identifying specific contexts of
meaning requires distinguishing amongst the myriad
natural and cultural influences on bone deposition
and preservation (Lyman 1994). Maximizing historical
and processual considerations is a good thing.
The present effort is simply to identify contrasting
structural relationships and contexts set within general
definitions of subsistence and more culturally
defined uses of bone.
For the past 7 years, the University of Maine has
excavated the Holmes Point West shell midden in
Machias, ME, USA (Fig. 1), collaborating with the
Passamaquoddy Tribe to better understand the abundant
Machias Bay Petroglyphs. Prior excavations at
the Holmes Point West site were conducted by Robert
MacKay in 1973, yielding a large (if unscreened)
faunal sample that was analyzed by Robert Ingraham
(2011) for his Master’s thesis in the Climate Change
Institute. A pattern of seal processing was identified
in which the remains of large gray seal (Halichoerus
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
92
grypus) were significantly dominated by the left
temporal bone (and the distinctive auditory bulla)
of the skull. This finding was placed in the context
of oral traditions that call for the return of bones of
marine animals to the sea (Ingraham et al. 2016).
A second faunal pattern at Holmes Point West, recognized
at other shell middens in coastal Maine, is
the almost exclusive representation of the extinct
sea mink (Neovision macrodon formerly Mustela
macrodon; Mead et al. 2000) by cranial parts with
few post-cranial bones. The recent Holmes Point
West excavations contributed a cluster of 3 mostly
complete sea mink maxillae or upper jaws in a welldefined
feature, with 2 other maxillae located within
2.5 m.
Excavations were also conducted at the Waterside
site in Sorrento, ME, USA, in relation to Sky
Heller’s dissertation research at the University of
Maine. Heller’s research focuses on investigating
changes in fish ecology at a time when swordfish disappeared
from the archaeological record in the Gulf
of Maine, ca. 3800 radiocarbon years BP. The Waterside
site was previously excavated by John Rowe
in the 1938 and stands as one of the few remaining
Late Archaic period shell middens on the Gulf of
Maine. It thus provides important ecological and
stratigraphic information for what is now called the
Moorehead phase and its relationship to the Susquehanna
tradition and the later Ceramic period (Rowe
1940). Rowe donated the site to the Archaeological
Conservancy in 1999 (Bangor Daily News 1999).
Our excavations in 2013 were directed to relocating
stratigraphy from Rowe’s excavations that hinted at
a possible Late Archaic period structure. Evidence
for this structure and an apparent concentration of
mammal mandibles were recovered during removal
of soil columns for fine screening.
In each of these three case studies, different criteria
must be weighed in evaluating symbolic patterning
relative to other potential explanations. Each is
pronounced enough to distinguish it from patterns of
direct refuse disposal. Each is the subject of further
testing and continued search for alternate explanations.
Together they provide examples of symbolic
activities, evidence of cosmology and identity, and
potential links to the animal symbolism of oral traditions
that would be very difficult to make without the
preservation afforded by shell middens.
Holmes Point West Site and Machias Bay
The Holmes Point West site is located on the east
side of Machias Bay in the town of Machiasport,
ME, USA (Fig. 1). The current excavations are being
conducted as a field
school funded by a Maine
Academic Prominence
Initiative grant (MAPI;
Newman and Robinson
2011) intended for the
salvage of eroding shell
middens and for incorporating
the interests and
community members of
Maine’s Wabanaki tribes.
Our involvement in Machias
developed from the
2006 return of the Birch
Point petroglyph site on
Machias bay to the Passamaquoddy
through
cooperation of the Passamaquoddy
tribe and
Maine Coast Heritage
Trust (2006) and subsequent
development
of a management plan
to protect and develop
cultural and educational
programs around the
petroglyph landscape
(Soctomah 2009). The
Figure 1. Site plan of Holmes Point West, and (inset) site locations mentioned in text along
the central coast of Maine, USA: (1) Turner Farm, (2) Waterside, (3) Great Spruce Island,
and (4) Holmes Point West.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
93
association of these petroglyphs—the largest concentration
of such images on the east coast of North
America, spanning an estimated 2500 years (Hedden
1996, 2004)—with shell middens and good bone
preservation provides a remarkable window on animal/
human relationships through time. The present
case studies are part of this larger ongoing project,
involving multiple research projects (graduate and
undergraduate) and preservation efforts.
None of the shell middens on Machias Bay are
undisturbed. They are frequently located on undefended
Pleistocene marine sediments (as at Holmes
Point West) which, along with high tidal ranges (up
to 4 m), has resulted in extensive erosion of sites
around the Bay. Artifact collecting at these sites,
once a more popular pastime, has also taken its toll.
Although relatively shallow (20–40 cm) and partly
disturbed, the site was unplowed, and bioturbation
remains one of the major disturbances on extant surfaces.
Progressive erosion has resulted in the loss of
earlier shell strata, with the migration of more recent
shell deposits over earlier occupation areas that were
formerly behind the midden. Radiocarbon dates on
pre-shell midden features are as old as 2165 ± 15 BP
(ISGS A2005, processed by Karine Tache, on residue
from a pseudo-scallop shell potsherd from Feature
8). Radiocarbon dates on Features 21 and 28 (Fig.
1), respectively, representing the initiation of the
central shell deposit, are 860 ± 30 BP (Beta-408150,
Cal AD 1150 to 1250 at 2σ) and 740 ± 30 BP (Beta-
408153, Cal AD 1250 to 1290 at 2σ). Thus, the major
shell deposit and preserved bone date to between ca.
1200 AD and 1700 AD, into
the colonial period. This period
overlaps with the proposed age
of the major petroglyph ledge
at the Birch Point site, located
directly across Machias Bay.
The latest petroglyphs at Birch
Point include a single-masted
17th-century ship with sail
and multiple crosses (Hedden
2004:342).
Holmes Point: The left ear
bone of the gray seal
Excavations by the University
of Maine in 1973
(Fig. 1) yielded a substantial
faunal sample that has been
described in detail (Ingraham
2011, Ingraham et al. 2016).
The assemblage was dominated
by seals with a minimum
number of individuals (MNI)
of 11 gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) and 11 harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina). The next highest MNIs are
4 moose (Alces alces) and 4 razorbill (Alca torda;
Ingraham et al. 2016:Table 1). Among the issues
represented by these species are the widespread
Algonquin accounts, including those of both the
Passamaquoddy (Soctomah 2002:171) and Penobscot
(Speck 1935a:23), of the disposal of the bones
of aquatic animals back into the water, effectively
removing them from the archaeological record. How
could this apply if the most abundant species at the
site are marine mammals? Does the oral tradition not
apply at Holmes Point? Or, can we discern some of
the local complexity behind the general oral tradition,
as in the remarkable quotation from Le Jeune
above?
The most numerous element for both gray and
harbor seal—providing the high minimal counts
above—is the temporal bone of the skull (Fig. 2;
Ingraham et al. 2016:table 2). This bone is often the
most abundant seal element found in sites around
the Gulf of Maine (Spiess and Lewis 2001:69) and
in northern Europe (Storå 2001:Paper V:13), which
should automatically raise a red flag. It is a highly
distinctive bone (identifiable in small fragments)
and durable, especially the massive mastoid process.
High visibility and durability are powerful attributes
in archaeology that should be approached with caution.
It is therefore important to thoroughly address
taphonomic issues that could account for the patterns
in other ways (Harper 1999, Ingraham et al. 2016:95).
This is especially true because the sample was
Figure 2. Left temporal bone with auditory bulla from a gray seal (PN 2940.2, excavated
in 2013). Side view looks through the auditory canal.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
94
collected without screening and also used for class instruction.
At the same time, large sample sizes of seal
elements are unusual in Maine, and the dominance
of skull fragments does not represent preferred meat
patterns, meriting attention. In the present case, six
of eleven left gray seal bulla came from a single large
feature (Feature 73-3) that allowed us to evaluate taphonomic
and recovery characteristics (Ingraham et
al. 2016:93). The feature was an isolated shell-filled
pit set back 3 m from the edge of the shell midden in
which bone was well preserved with four species of
fish including sturgeon, cod, blue fish, and American
eel. A large moose bone shaft was radiocarbon dated
to 430 ± 30 BP (Beta–408151, Cal AD 1430 to 1485 at
2σ), although upper levels included early 17th-century
contact-period artifacts. Analyses of preservation
and collection procedures suggest that neither would
account for the pattern of large and well-preserved
seal bones, although small bone fragments were
certainly missed. In the case of gray seal, 11 individuals
are represented by 11 left and only 2 right temporal
bones, representing a statistically significant
dominance of the left side (Ingraham et al. 2016).
Sidedness is not a factor of either visibility or durability.
Does it represent intentional selection? Theodore
White (1956:401) observed that it is not uncommon
to find significant differences in sidedness, noting that
in “certain groups the parents and grandparents of the
man and wife customarily received specific elements
of the carcass, such as the left front leg.” But the temporal
bone of the skull is not a meaty bone, making
habitual division of a carcass an unlikely explanation.
The skull may have been retained as a container for
the brain for use in brain tanning of hides (Harper
1999:121). A concerted effort to locate other skull
elements did not yield any, and using the skull as a
container would not account for sidedness patterning.
Alternatively, the well-documented practice of
retaining and protecting specific bones from each animal
hunted may have incorporated sidedness (Preston
1964:144; Smith 2011:80; Tanner 1979:153, 172).
An example exists among the Wabanaki, although
its origins are disputed, where the left hind foot of
the moose was sometimes retained for medicinal
purposes (Ganong 1908:382, Merrill 1916:263). A
dominance of right dog tarsals is recorded (six right
calcanea, 3 with cut marks, and 4 right naviculars)
at the Indian Island site in the Sheepscot River estuary
of central coastal Maine, USA, suggesting the
possibility of cultural selection factors (Spiess et
al. 2006:165). Spiess and Lewis (2001) regularly
searched for the significance of sidedness at the Turner
Farm site in Maine, as noted below.
Testing with 95% probability means that one
in twenty cases may be accidental, emphasizing
the need for sufficient sample sizes and contextual
information. In contrast to the temporal bone, there
are marked absences among other gray seal bones.
Although post cranial bones are generally difficult
to distinguish between gray and harbor seal, other
bones are large, durable, and easily identifiable,
especially the mandible. The 1973 excavations produced
21 fragments of gray seal temporal bones, but
no mandibles. This is in contrast with harbor seal,
with 22 fragments of temporal bone, mostly from the
right side, and 11 mandible fragments, suggesting
different treatments for gray and harbor seal (Ingraham
et al. 2016:Table 2).
One possible explanation for the different treatment
of the two seal species is dissimilar butchery
practices related to a difference in size. Oral traditions
suggest that the bones of marine mammals
were “left for the tide to take back to the ocean”
(Soctomah 2002:171). If smaller harbor seals were
brought back to the habitation site for butchery,
this may have resulted in a greater proportion of
post-cranial remains deposited locally. Larger gray
seals, however, may have been butchered remotely,
possibly directly on the shore, decreasing this possibility.
The left temporal bone, however, seems to
have been singled out and retained, conforming to
ethnographic accounts of special treatment of animal
bones. The gray seal may have multiple treatments,
like the beaver reported by Le Jeune, and the contrast
between disposal offsite and the retention of
specific bones potentially enhances the visibility or
the pattern. Ingraham identified the pattern in the
1973 excavation sample, and we get to test it with
ongoing excavations and analysis.
Holmes Point: Facial bones of the sea mink
The sea mink was first described as an extinct
species by Prentiss (1903) from a single archaeological
skull fragment recovered in Brooklin, ME,
USA. The type specimen consisted of the maxilla,
nasals, and zygoma, lacking the posterior brain case
(Prentiss 1903:888). Since that time, there has been
debate about whether the sea mink is a separate species
(Loomis 1911, Mead et al. 2000, Prentiss 1903)
or a subspecies (Hardy 1903, Manville 1966) of the
modern American mink (Neovision vision, formerly
Mustela vison). The most recent and most comprehensive
analysis favored a separate species (Mead et
al. 2000).
Also of considerable interest are interpretations
of the distribution of sea mink. Black et al.
(1998) suggest that sea mink recovered in New
Brunswick were traded or brought from Maine,
based on interior occurrences and association with
non-local lithics. This is an important issue even at
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
95
and provide preliminary observations here as well
as a more detailed account of Feature 28. In the
first 2 seasons (2008 and 2009), a small number of
sea mink mandibles were recovered. In 2010, two
fragments of maxilla were recovered in the screen
from the NE quadrant of unit N28 E19 (Provenience
Number 2557), but no feature was recognized. In
2012, Joshua W. Desrosier and Mandi Curtis excavated
the adjacent unit N28E20, and on June 25,
Josh carefully exposed 7 teeth and maxilla fragments
that were photographed or plotted in situ. All
of the students had been instructed in identifying sea
mink and seal bones but it is a credit to Josh’s attentiveness
and record keeping that the small bones
were recorded in situ.
This proved a valuable record because it was
later determined that the tightly clustered specimens
(designated Feature 28) originated from 3 nearly
complete maxillae or facial bones from 2 large (Nos.
1 and 2; Fig. 3) and 1 smaller mink (No. 3; Fig. 3).
The area of concentration (area 2557; Fig. 3) contained
a total of 17 mink teeth and maxilla fragments
from level 6 of this quadrant of the feature (including
the 7 that were in situ), with only 2 or 3 other
bone fragments. The two fragments discovered the
previous year (PN 1559) were reattached to minks
No. 2 and 3. One additional maxilla fragment from
the left side of mink No. 1 was found in situ in 2014
(PN 3335.2; Fig. 4). Once reassembled, all fragments
were accounted for by the 3 mink maxillae,
including both the left and right sides of all 3 specimens.
The larger specimens have been identified as
sea mink due to their size and morphology. Mink No.
sites within the proposed range within Maine when
only a few selected elements are found. The Turner
Farm site in Penobscot Bay (Fig. 1; Bourque 1995)
produced the largest well-documented assemblage
of mink bones, spanning 5000 years of occupation,
with 1004 elements of which 2% to 6% are thought
to be American mink and the remainder sea mink
(Spiess and Lewis 2001:74). Of interest here is that
bone elements from all parts of the body are present
for both the Archaic and Ceramic periods, and that
an analysis of left and right sides suggests “some
sort of differential human treatment of right versus
left mandibles” in some periods but not consistently
over time with a total of 132 left mandibles and 137
right (Spiess and Lewis 2001:75).
In 1909, the Amherst Biological Expedition collected
faunal remains from shell heaps along the
Maine coast. Flagg Island, in Casco Bay produced
what was interpreted as “10 upper and 34 lower
jaws of males, and 2 upper and 11 lower jaws of
females” identified as sea mink (Loomis 1911:227).
Given that these were excavated in one week, it is
not expected that all elements would have been collected
equally, but it is noted that “[e]very skull has
the brain case broken and lost” while the “facial portion
of each skull is, however, pretty much intact…”
(Loomis 1911:227). Other sites produced only 2 or
three mandibles.
At Great Spruce Island in Englishman Bay, just
west of Machias Bay, Sanger and Chase (1983) recorded
12 bones of the extinct sea mink, 11 of which
were mandibles, 9 of which were from the left side
representing another possible case of selection that
is discussed further below.
This site is of particular
interest due to its proximity
to Machias Bay and because
the excavators were able
to distinguish clear gravel
house floors behind the shell
midden. The house areas
were represented by cranial
elements alone, while the
shell dumping area had both
cranial and post cranial bone
(Sanger and Chase 1983).
At Holmes Point West,
the 1973 excavations produced
two mink bones, both
of which were right mandibles
(Ingraham et al.2016).
Faunal analysis from our
excavations between 2008
and 2014 is ongoing, but
we were alert for sea mink
Figure 3, Three mink skulls (1–3) and four teeth of the angler fish (bottom row) from
Feature 28.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
96
ern quadrants of Feature 28 and retained all the soil
for fine-screening. Although we have not identified
mink phalanges from these samples, 11 long angler
teeth (Lophius sp.; Fig. 4) were recovered from a
50 m x 1.5 m area overlying the feature, only one
of which came from a fine-mesh screen, assuring
comparability across the site. These teeth might have
acted like tinkling cones that were often attached to
the feet of medicine bundles (Harrison 1986, Willoughby
1905:638). Although faunal remains are
still being processed, angler teeth are thus far limited
to the area of Feature 28, and no other angler skeletal
elements have been identified. If they had been
found in groups of 5 among the sea mink maxillae,
a good case might be made for medicine bundles,
but they were scattered over the feature, apparently
above the level of the sea mink bones. They seem to
be associated with the feature, but not yet in a recognizable
spatial pattern.
With excavation of the northern quadrants of
Feature 28, the structure of the feature itself became
more apparent. One stone tool—a complete ground
stone celt—was recovered from the NE quadrant
(Fig. 3). Large flakes and rocks appear to represent
a covering. A beaver (Castor canadensis) pelvis in
the NW quadrant was found in the same level as the
mink maxilla. A portion of the pelvis (PN 3331.3)
was radiocarbon dated to 860 ± 30 BP. Other studies
are ongoing. Samuel Hatch and Emily Blackwood,
who excavated portions of the northern half of the
feature, worked with Andrea Nurse (University of
Maine, Climate Change Institute, Orono, ME, USA)
to process soil samples for pollen and phytolyths.
Andrew Heller prepared a micromorphology column
for microscopic examination of the feature and
events that produced it. Kendra Bird is investigating
spatial relationships of the flaking debris and other
materials in and around the feature.
While it would be very valuable if another similar
feature was found, it is remarkable how informative
a single feature with complex contexts can be.
We do not need to test the statistical significance of
three mink facial bones to identify whether they are
associated by chance (although statistical analysis of
other contents will be useful). Rather, multiple lines
of evidence identify this as an event, a moment in
time associated with complex activities. It is entirely
possible that sea mink do not represent subsistence
remains at all at Holmes Point West, as suggested
for New Brunswick (Black et al. 1998). Do the 12
maxillae recovered on Flagg Island in Casco Bay
represent similar cultural practices of a broad coastal
pattern (Loomis 1911)? Certainly the dominance
of mandibles within domestic structures at nearby
3 is less clear; it is close in size to a modern American
mink, but the shape of the infraorbital foramen
is more similar to sea mink.
By good fortune and accidents of timing, Feature
28 was neatly quartered and taken out over a period
of 4 years. The first year we missed it altogether. The
majority of mink bones came out in the last week
of the second year, which initiated research on the
cultural uses of mink facial bones. Possible uses include
talismans and clothing attachments as well as
retention of skulls in skin sacks and bundles. Otterskin
medicine bundles as well as mink and other
animals were commonly used throughout the Great
Lakes region, especially associated with Midewiwin
or Grand Lodge Medicine Society of the Ojibwa,
within which each individual had their own bag
(Densmore 1929:93, Hoffman 1891). A mink bag
retaining the skull of the mink is illustrated in Densmore
(1929:93, Plate 36) for the Chippewa, west of
Lake Superior. Facial bones of an otter have been
interpreted as a medicine bundle from a reputed shaman
burial in Ontario, Canada, dated to ca. 900 AD,
calibrated (Fox and Molto 1994:36). Among Great
Lakes groups, the otter is the pre-eminant medicine
animal associated with a wide variety of contents
that are identifiable archaeologically (Claassen
2014:129, Harper 1999:358).
The mink maxillae may or may not be from
medicine bundles, and we sought alternate ways of
testing this possibility. An occasional attribute of
medicine bundles is that the phalanges and claws are
left as part of the bag. To search for these associated
parts, in 2013 and 2014, we excavated the 2 north-
Figure 4. Plan of Feature 28 that was excavated in quadrants.
Provenience numbers (PN) are provided for selected
artifacts. Rocks are in black.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
97
Great Spruce island is related somehow (Sanger and
Chase 1983). Notably, although the faunal analysis
at Holmes Point West is not finished, sea mink remains
are strongly dominated by cranial elements,
but the mandibles and maxilla have not been found
together. If supported with increased sample sizes,
these are consistent retention and disposal practices
that are good candidates for strongly maintained cultural
practices. With Feature 28, we are beginning to
discern some of the complex associations of the sea
mink.
The Waterside Site and Mammal Mandibles
The Waterside Site in Sorrento, ME, USA, is
one of the rare Late Archaic period shell middens
on the Gulf of Maine, dating to about 4000 cal BP.
The earliest excavations at the site were conducted
by John Rowe in 1938 and 1940 when the property
belonged to his family. Only a limited portion was
excavated, preserving valuable samples of this
small site for modern analyses. Rowe did a particularly
good job of describing the stratigraphy in his
1940 publication. He later became a well-known
Peruvian archaeologist but retained the property in
Sorrento and donated the site to the Archaeological
Conservancy in 1999 as a permanent archaeological
preserve. Correlation of our work with that of Rowe
was enhanced when Ann Surprenant recognized that
Rowe’s excavation units were still visible on the surface,
so close to the paved road that it was difficult
to believe that they had not been disturbed.
The Waterside site is bedrock defended, but it is
still eroding. Rowe’s accurate map and the visibility
of his excavations on the surface allowed us to accurately
measure the amount of erosion that occurred
between 1940 and 2013 (Fig. 5), which we calculated
to be up to 2 m of site loss, including about two rows
of the 1940 excavation units. The Archaeological
Conservancy was interested in further work at the
site due to site loss. Sky Heller’s research on Late
Archaic period marine ecology required minimal
Figure 5. Excavation plan of the Waterside from 1940, superimposed over modern topographic map with a 10-cm contour
interval. Note depressions from original excavation units. Units with heavy boundaries were re–excavated in 2013, with
column samples numbered 1–4. Plan by Andrew Heller.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
98
The top few inches of the humus and pebbles
are practically sterile, containing no shells,
bones, or specimens [artifacts]. As one goes
deeper, the humus gets richer, the pebbles
scarcer, and in the central and eastern sections
are vast quantities of animal bones,
with frequent specimens: plummets, hammerstones,
celts, bone points, slate points,
adzes, and swordfish sword. The rich humusbones-
and-pebbles layer rests directly on the
yellow glacial clay which forms the bottom
of the shell heap.
Our excavations corroborated the description of
a high density of bone at the base of the stratum,
where we found a swordfish vertebra lying partly in
contact with the underlying yellow brown subsoil.
This deep, bone-rich, shell-free stratum was more
reminiscent of a deep pit filling than a surface deposit,
which was supported by the deep shell layer
recorded on the eastern edge of unit 2N/1W, described
as:
excavation to recover soil columns for fine screening.
We removed backfill from 2 of Rowe’s units (Fig. 5),
in locations with Moorehead phase shell-midden
and non-shell deposits. We then removed four (25
cm square) columns for fine screening, a total area of
0.25 m2. We did not expect to find evidence of animal
bone symbolism in the very small area of undisturbed
strata that we excavated. That we seem to have found
it makes it intuitively more convincing, but the work
is necessarily preliminary.
Rowe identified 2 periods of occupation at the
Waterside site, an upper Ceramic-period shell midden
and a more complex lower Moorehead-phase occupation,
although these terms were not in use at that
time. The Moorehead-phase stratigraphy was quite
different in different areas, represented by the 2
units that we re-excavated in 2013, Rowes’s 3N/2W
and 2N/1W (Fig. 5). We provide our profile only for
the eastern unit, 2N/1W (Fig. 6). Rowe’s (1940:7)
description of the non-shell Moorehead-phase layer
applies to the more westerly unit 3N/2W as well as
to our stratum G in unit 2N/1W (Fig. 6):
Figure 6. Waterside excavations (2013) correlated with the Rowe’s unit 2N 1W, and with North and West walls of the extension
associated with column removal. Positions of mandibles are shown. Rocks R1, R2, and R3 are the same ones plotted
by Rowe.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
99
Excavations through the “whole-shell” yielded
swordfish ribs and the left and right paired, partlyarticulated,
mandibles of a moose that retained 3
incisors (PN 259; Fig. 7). Both sides of the mandible
were broken off 15 cm from the anterior end of the
jaw, and the broken posterior ends were battered
or flaked and polished, perhaps by handling or bag
polish. This find resembles broken and paired mandibles
from Woodland period burials (Fox and Molto
1994:32), but as of yet we have seen no comparable
specimens from moose. Directly at the base of the
whole shell, just to the side of the moose mandibles,
was a nearly complete deer mandible with the lower
edge broken away (PN 261; Fig. 7). While clearing a
pocket between the rocks on the north wall at about
the same time, we exposed a complete right bobcat
(Lynx rufus) mandible, missing the canine tooth.
Correspondence from John Rowe indicates that he
recovered a lynx (or bobcat) mandible in his excavation
of the 2N units (records of the Abbe Museum,
Bar Harbor, ME, USA).
At Waterside, it is the more general selection
of large-mammal mandibles—including scarce
(bobcat) and unusual (articulated left and right
… a very clean, loosely packed layer of
whole and large broken shells at the bottom,
resting on some fire-blackened rocks. The
way in which the layers overlap makes it
clear that these shell layers antedate the old
surface formed elsewhere by the humus and
pebble layer, and they contain no pottery.
(Rowe 1940:7)
During our excavation of Rowe’s unit 2N/1W, we
were easily able to identify his stratigraphy, even to
the extent of identifying specific rocks in the lower
right corner of the north wall profile (Rocks 1, 2, and
3 in Fig. 6; and Rowe 1940:Plate XIV). It was clear
that Rowe’s “humus and pebbles” (our stratum G)
overlay the “whole and large broken shells” (our stratum
D), an arrangement that resembled the filling of
semi-subterranean house structures from the Ceramic
period of eastern Maine (Sanger 2010). While collecting
soil columns for fine screening, we extended
this unit to the east and encountered more loose shell
underlain by dense boulders. In our new excavations,
it was apparent that the boulders projected higher
into the “whole shell” layer than apparent in Rowe’s
excavations, that some boulders lay in direct contact
with those below, that the
lower boulders lay mostly
on black soil beneath the
shell midden (that we interpret
as the original top soil)
although some intruded
into the subsoil, and that the
“whole-shell” (stratum D)
was deposited directly on
and between the boulders
(Fig. 6). The whole-shell
layer appears to be draped
over the boulders. There
was no indication of a pit
below the boulders. This
arrangement resembles Ceramic
period house pits surrounded
by rocks (thought
to support rafters) and with
peripheral deposits of shell
around the rocks (Sanger
2010:27). Although there
is currently only a trench
across the Waterside feature,
if this interpretation
is correct, then our 25-cmsquare
soil columns landed
directly on the peripheral
stone deposit of a house
structure.
Figure 7. Three mandibles removed from the black soil below the rock pile (PN 212 and
261) and from the overlying whole shell layer (PN 259) at the Waterside site. From top to
bottom they are moose, bobcat, and deer.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
100
distal halves of moose) mandibles—and their placement
within a proposed architectural feature that
is proposed as a case of animal-bone symbolism.
Similar associations occur in the Ceramic period
on Great Spruce Island, where cranial elements and
mandibles were reported to be concentrated in
Ceramic-period houses (Sanger and Chase 1983). At
Waterside, bone symbolism in an occupation context
complements evidence of animal-bone symbolism in
mortuary contexts of the Moorehead burial tradition
(Claassen 2015), with less support from the direct
historical approach.
Discussion and Connections
The 3 case studies presented above represent
special processing and use of faunal remains that are
proposed to relate to different symbolic functions
and culturally appropriate use of animal bone. Each
is distinguished by a different set of contexts and a
different set of test implications, and each, in effect,
requires development of culturally specific middlerange
theory (Trigger 1995), ferreting out sometimes
idiosyncratic impacts on the material record that can
be identified archaeologically.
The left temporal bone of the seal was distinguished
as a statistically significant pattern from
a whole-site faunal sample, spanning hundreds of
years. In this case, it is the high frequency of one
bone element contrasted with the low number of
other diagnostic elements, such as the mandible,
that suggests both a pattern of offsite disposal and
cultural selection, both practices recorded ethnographically
and in oral traditions. The challenges
of identification involve sufficient sample sizes of
elements from a relatively stable cultural practice,
while testing involves replication of the results in
other samples and sites, and better definition of specialized
contexts. Better identification of postcranial
bones might provide more highly structured differences
in the processing of gray and harbor seals, a
study that is underway.
The selection of cranial elements of the sea
mink was recognized at other sites (Loomis 2011,
Sanger and Chase 1983). The new evidence from
the Holmes Point involves a concentration of facial
bones within a complex feature. The use of mink
and mustelid facial bones has direct ethnographic
analogues in the use of medicine bags for which
middle-range hypotheses may contribute support for
symbolic function of this element. The complexity
of the feature itself was only recognized because of
the effort to refine the context of the sea mink concentration
relative to surrounding activities, based
on ongoing studies by Andrew Heller, Kendra Bird,
and others. Interpretations have changed and developed.
The feature may be a covering on an activity
floor rather than a pit or a hearth, with rather unique
formational processes that will help identify similar
cases. In the meantime, gleaning the contexts of this
feature and analyzing historical contexts continues.
The Waterside site stratigraphy published over
70 years ago by John Rowe hinted at the presence
of some sort of domestic or ritual structure, and our
recent excavations provide further support for this.
The association of multiple, unusual mandibles with
a possible architectural stone embankment is unique
for the northeastern Archaic period but has analogies
in the Ceramic period (Sanger 2010, Sanger
and Chase 1983). House structures provide a key to
numerous aspects of social and ritual organization,
justifying the effort of detailed spatial excavation
and analysis (Hrynick and Betts 2014). Although
specific historical analogies may be weaker due to
greater time depth at the Waterside site, the broader
pattern of human/animal relationships and specialized
processing and treatment of animal bone may
well be of great time depth. This pattern may serve
as a broad cosmological process with demonstrable
impact on the archaeological record that contrasts
with more utilitarian explanations for faunal distributions.
Aspects of human/animal relations have
been proposed to be more broadly Amerindian,
and still more broadly, animistic (Claassen 1914,
Viveiros de Castro 1998), but the variations are not
universal and expressions of particular cultures can
be both diverse and remarkably stable, among signatures
of world view, culture, and identity (Betts et al
2012:624, Robinson and Ort 2012). These cultural
processes, in turn, impact many other aspects of
faunal analysis.
We have not proved specific meanings for any of
the case studies, but have identified species-specific
symbolic contexts that can be tested and developed.
These are necessary steps in the recognition of symbolic
factors that may greatly influence the structure
of faunal samples from occupation sites. The effort
expended on such enquiries is correlated with values
placed on them. The research in Machias was initiated
as part of the Passamaquoddy Petroglyph Project.
The association has strongly influenced: (1) the topics
of the research, (2) the shared experience gained
by involvement of Native and non-Native students
and scholars, and (3) the explicit goal of finding
connections between past and the present, topics
elaborated on below. These are characteristics of an
increasing number of archaeological projects, and it
is useful to affirm that, in this case, a broadening of
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
101
interests and values enhanced the scientific aspects
of archaeology by increasing the importance of the
research and the range of factors that were investigated.
First, the topic of this paper and the emphasis on
symbolic uses of bone was to a large degree initiated
by a search for symbolic contexts associated with the
concentration of petroglyphs, and, in turn, on the importance
of the petroglyphs to the Passamaquoddy.
The petroglyphs concentrated on Machias
Bay are links to a proud Passamaquoddy
cultural heritage and identity. This was demonstrated
during traditional ceremonies in
recognition of the transfer of the “Picture
Rocks” site. The transfer event included
Passamaquoddy elders, a new generation of
grade-school Passamaquoddy students as
well as other interested individuals and comprised
over 200 people. (Soctomah 2009)
Thus, while shell middens are traditionally of
great importance to archaeology, this significance
is enhanced and paralleled by their modern cultural
importance and efforts to understand this long-lived
tradition.
Second, the success of a field school depends on
the interest and attentiveness of the students, and the
enthusiasm generated by the experience. Fieldwork
is a continuous development of new insights and interests.
Field schools conducted at the Holmes Point
West site included a tour of the major petroglyph site
by Donald Soctomah communicating the immediacy
of spiritual and cultural links for the Passamaquoddy.
The shaman and animal figures in stone provide
possible meanings for the fragmentary animal bones
in the shell midden. We emphasize careful watch
for particular faunal patterns as we learn them, and
the day Josh Derosier uncovered 3 sea mink (in
situ!), it was already part of a broader story. The
week before the discovery, we took our field trip
to the Passamaquoddy Tribal Museum in Indian
Township, where Donald Soctomah and field-school
participants Natalie and Cassandra Dana served as
guides. These tours help form connections between
archaeological materials and human activities. For
example, something as “mundane” as fire-cracked
rock, when encountered in action at an active sweat
lodge, can take on a whole new significance for the
student. The Tribal Museum houses a 6.4-m (21-ft)
birch-bark canoe that was built in 2011 (Soctomah
2014) and launched at both Passamaquoddy reservations
at Indian Township and Pleasant Point so that
all the Passamaquoddy could use their Native craft.
We were pleased, indeed, at the invitation to carry
the canoe from the museum to nearby Grand Falls
Flowage, where Donald took the stern and most of
us had our first experience in a birch-bark canoe.
The importance of participation presupposes the
third important impact of the collaboration, linking
the past to the present. Among the many cultural
items in the Museum are etched birch-bark canoes
and containers made by Tomah Joseph and his son
Sabattus Tomah. Tomah Joe and Sabattus are the
great grandfathers of Natalie and Cassandra Dana
who are, in turn, board members of the Maluhsihikon
Petroglyph Foundation and were part of the
Machias field schools from 2008 to 2014. Sabattus
Tomah spoke with ethnographer Nicholas Smith on
numerous occasions in 1953 and 1954. Historian
Micah Pawling, Donald Soctomah, and Brian Robinson
are now working with Nick Smith to compile
the accounts of these conversations. Sabattus Tomah
was a tribal story teller, and his stories of the white
weasel are among widespread accounts of powerful
otters, weasels, and mink that peopled the oral traditions
of the Wabanaki, providing windows on animal
symbolism that we hope to find archaeologically.
Sabattus Tomah also related an account of origins of
the petroglyphs at Machias Bay, bringing traditional
knowledge to the present. Donald Soctomah’s great
grandfather, John Soctomah, was a seasonal resident
of Machiasport and an important informant for
Fannie Hardy Eckstorm’s (1978) research on place
names, which are in turn major signposts on the
cultural landscape (Basso 1996, Soctomah 2004).
We were fortunate to interview Frank Foster, who
remembered John Soctomah, and Wayne Renshaw,
who lived next door to John Soctomah’s summer
residence, providing surprising details of their relationship
with the town. After Maine Coast Heritage
Trust helped the Passamaquoddy acquire the major
petroglyph site in Machiasport, the Trust went on to
develop their first cultural heritage-based land holdings,
not as an archaeological monument, but as a
heritage tradition in which modern participation is
seen as a key to preservation (Deirdre Whitehead,
Maine Coast Heritage Trust, East Machias, ME,
2015 personal comm.).
These last aspects of cultural collaboration may
not all directly bear on the topic of this paper, except
that much of the research would not have occurred
were it not for the combined goals and efforts of
those involved. Such collaborations are a part of
many projects, often combining prehistoric and
historic archaeology (Leone 2003) with a variety
of current interests. Each project has to identify
particular goals and potentialities, and how they fit
into general enquiries and cultural values. The shell
middens are eroding at an alarming rate. It is clear
that if the loss of cultural heritage through erosion
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
102
Claassen, C. 2015. Beliefs and Rituals in Archaic Eastern
North America: An Interpretive Guide. The University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. 408 pp.
Densmore, F. 1929. Chippewa customs. Smithsonian Institution
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 96,
Washington, DC, USA.
Eckstorm, F.H. 1978. Indian Place Names of the Penobscot
Valley and the Maine Coast. First published 1941.
University of Maine at Orono Press, Orono, ME, USA.
272 pp.
Fox, W.A., and J.E. Molto. 1994 The shaman of Long
Point. Ontario Archaeology 57:23–44.
Ganong, W.F (Ed.) 1908. The Description and Natural
History of the Coasts of North America (Acadia). by
Denys, N. 1672. The Chaplain Society, Toronto, ON,
Canada. 687 pp.
Hardy, M. 1903. The extinct mink from the Maine shell
heaps. Forest and Stream 6l:125.
Harper, R. K. 1999. To render the God of the water
propitious: Hunting and human–animal relations in
the Northeast Woodlands. Ph.D. Dissertation. Paper
AAI9956473. Available online at: http://digitalcommons.
uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI9956473. Accessed
23 May 2016.
Harrison, J. 1986. “He heard something laugh": Otter
imagery in the Midéwiwin. Bulletin of the Detroit
Institute of Arts 62:46–53.
Hedden, M. 1996. 3500 years of shamanism in Maine
rock art. Pp. 7–24, In C.H. Faulkner (Ed.). Rock Art of
the Eastern Woodlands.American Rock Art Research
Association. Occasional Paper 2, San Jose, CA, USA.
136 pp.
Hedden, M. 2004. Passamaquoddy shamanism and rock
art in Machias Bay, Maine. Pp 319–343, In C. Diaz-
Granados and J.R. Duncan (Eds.). The Rock Art of
Eastern North America. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. 456 pp.
Hoffman, W.J. 1891. The Mide'wiwin or "Grand Medicine
Society" of the Ojibwa. Pp. 143–300, In Seventh
Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885–1886.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.
409 pp.
Holt, J.Z. 1996. Beyond optimization: Alternative ways
of examining animal exploitation. World Archaeology
28:89–109.
Hornborg, A.C. 2008. Mi’kmaq Landscapes: From Animism
to Sacred Ecology. Ashgate Publishing Limited,
Aldershot, UK. 214 pp.
Hrynick, M.G., and M.W. Betts. 2014. Identifying ritual
structures in the archaeological record: A Maritime
Woodland period sweathouse from Nova Scotia,
Canada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
35:92–105.
Ingraham, R. 2011. Specialized taphonomies from an eastern
Maine shell midden: Faunal analysis from site 62-8,
Holmes Point West, Machias, Maine. Master’s Thesis.
University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 111 pp.
Ingraham, R.C., B.S. Robinson, K.D. Sobolik, and A.S.
Heller. 2016. “Left for the tide to take back”: Specialized
processing of seals on Machias Bay, Maine. Journal
of Island and Coastal Archaeology 11(1):89–106.
and uncontrolled digging of shell middens is to be
minimized, it is going to have to come from shared
interests and efforts.
Acknowledgments
This report provides case studies of elements from excavations
that have involved numerous people, especially
students and visiting scholars at the University of Maine
field schools at Machias, and volunteers at the Waterside
site. The field school program was funded by a grant from
the Maine Academic Prominence Initiative (MAPI) to
Brian Robinson and Lisa Neuman that inspired avenues of
research development. The Machias work represents longterm
collaboration with the Passamaquoddy Tribal Historic
Preservation Office, the efforts of Maine Coast Heritage
Trust, and landowners Robert and Kenneth Brack and
families. The Bracks have been anonymous landowners in
previous reports, and it is a pleasure to thank them for their
enormous hospitality and for supporting so much of the
preservation effort. Excavation of the Waterside site was
conducted with the permission and encouragement of the
Archaeological Conservancy. One of the case studies was
the work of Robert Ingraham, whose recent paper we cite
heavily. In the body of the report, we have named ongoing
research by students and colleagues. Figures and supporting
research were contributed by Andrew Heller and Kendra
Bird. This paper was modified from ones presented
at symposia chaired by Gabe Hrynick and Matthew Betts
(AENA), as well as by Donald Holly and Christopher Wolf
(CAA). Others copiously mentioned in the text but not to
be missed here include Donald Soctomah, Nicholas Smith,
Natalie Dana, Cassandra Dana, and Deirdre Whitehead.
Ann Surprenant, Micah Pawling, and Donald Soctomah
participated in research and provided comments on this
paper. Cheryl Claassen, Ross Harper, and Gabe Hrynick
provided helpful reviews. Shortcomings are our own.
Literature Cited
Bangor Daily News. 1999. Frenchman Bay Red Paint site
preserved. October 25, p. B1.
Basso, K. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and
Language Among the Western Apache. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 191 pp.
Betts, M.W., S.E. Blair, and D.W. Black, 2012. Perspectivism,
mortuary symbolism, and human–shark
relationships on the Maritime Peninsula. American
Antiquity 77:621–645.
Black, D.W., J.E. Reading, and H.G. Savage. 1998. Archaeological
records of the extinct Sea Mink, Mustela
macrodon (Carnivora: Mustelidae), from Canada. Canadian
Field-Naturalist 112:45–49.
Bourque, B.J. 1995. Diversity and Complexity in Prehistoric
Maritime Societies: A Gulf of Maine Perspective.
Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA. 414 pp.
Claassen, C. 2014. Hunting ritual, trapping meaning,
gathering offerings. Pp. 125–160, In T.M. Peres (Ed.).
Trends and Traditions in Southeastern Zooarchaeology.
University Press of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA.
226 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
103
Sanger, D. 2010. Semi-subterranean houses in the Ceramic
Period along the coast of Maine. The Maine
Archaeologial Society Bulletin 50:23–45.
Sanger, D., and T. Chase. 1983. An introduction to the
Roque Island Group, Maine. Paper presented to the
Canadian Archaeological Association, April 1983.
Manuscript on file at Anthropology Department, University
of Maine, Orono, ME, USA.
Sassaman, K.E., and D.H. Holly. 2011. Transformative
hunter–gatherer archaeology in North America. Pp.
1–13, In K.E. Sassaman and D.H. Holly Jr. (Eds.).
Hunter–Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process.
Amerind Studies in Archaeology, University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, AZ, USA. 352 pp.
Smith, N.N. 1954. Wabanaki dances. Bulletin of the Massachusetts
Archaeological Society 16:29–36.
Smith, N.N. 2011. Three Hundred Years in Thirty: Memoir
of Transition with the Cree Indians of Lake Mistassini.
Polar Bear and Company, Solon, ME, USA. 272 pp.
Soctomah, D. 2002. Passamaquoddy at the Turn of the
Century 1890–1920: Tribal life and times in Maine
and New Brunswick. Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indian
Township, Princeton, ME, USA. 177 pp.
Soctomah, D. 2004. Landscapes, legends, and language
of the Passamaquoddy People: An interactive journey
in the land of the Passamaquoddy. CD, Skicin Records
and Passamaquoddy Historic Preservation Office,
Pleasant Point, ME, USA.
Soctomah, D. (Ed.) 2009. Petroglyph management plan
for Machias Bay: Protection and documenting the
uniqueness of Machias Bay. Report to the National
Park Service, Tribal Historic Preservation Office –Passamaquoddy
Tribe, Pleasant Point Reservation, ME,
USA.
Soctomah, D. 2014. Passamaquoddy birchbark canoe.
A production made possible by a National Historic
Preservation Grant. Available online at http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=46LoBsZZwok. Accessed 1
September 2015.
Speck, F.G. 1935a. Penobscot tales and religious beliefs.
The Journal of American Folklore 48:1–107.
Speck, F.G. 1935b. Naskapi; The Savage Hunters of the
Labrador Peninsula. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, OK, USA. 272 pp.
Spiess, A.E., and R.A. Lewis. 2001. The Turner Farm
Fauna: 5000 Years of Hunting and Fishing in Penobscot
Bay, Maine. Occasional Publications in Maine
Archaeology (11). Maine State Museum, Augusta,
ME, USA. 177 pp.
Spiess, A., K. Sobolik, D. Crader, J. Mosher, and D. Wilson.
2006. Cod, clams, and deer: The food remains
from Indiantown Island. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 34:141–187.
Storå, J. 2001. Reading Bones: Stone Age Hunters and
Seals in the Baltic. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology
21. 253 pp.
Tanner, A. 1979. Bringing Home Animals: Religious Ideology
and Mode of Production of the Mistassini Cree
Hunters. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY, USA. 233
pp.
Kristensen, T.J. 2010. L’anse Aux Meadows (EjAv-01):
An archaeological and ethnohistorical investigation
of bird use during the Recent Indian Period in Newfoundland
and Labrador. Master’s Thesis. Memorial
University, St. John's, NL, Canada. 169 pp.
Le Clercq, C. 1910. New Relation of Gaspesia, With the
Customs and Religion of the Gaspesian Indians, W.F.
Ganong (Ed.). The Champlain Society, totonto, ON,
Canada.
Leone, M. 2003. The origins of questions in historical
archaeology. Pp. 17–22, In T.L. Vanpool and C.S.
VanPool (Eds.). Essential Tensions in Archaeological
Method and Theory. The University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City, UT, USA. 197 pp.
Loomis, F.B. 1911. A new mink from the shell heaps of
Maine. American Journal of Science 183:227–229.
Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 552 pp.
Maine Coast Heritage Trust. 2006. 3000-year-old petroglyph
site regained by Passamaquoddy Tribe. Newsletters
of the Maine Coast Heritage Trust. Available
online at http://www.mcht.org/news/2006/10/3000_
year_old_petroglyph_site_1.shtml. Accessed 1 September
2015.
Manville, R.H. 1966. The extinct sea mink, with taxonomic
notes. Proceedings of the US National Museum
122:1–12.
Mead, L I., A.E. Spiess, and K.D. Sobolik. 2000. Skeleton
of extinct North American sea mink (Mustela macrodon).
Quaternary Research 53:247–262.
Merrill, S. 1916. The Moose Book: Facts and Stories from
Northern Forests. E.P. Dutton and Company, New
York, NY, USA. 496 pp.
Neuman, L., and B.S. Robinson. 2011. Revealing shell
midden legacies in coastal Maine: Building connections
to local indigenous communities through a new
kind of archaeological field school. Paper presented at
the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Prentiss, D W. 1903. Description of an extinct mink from
the shell-heaps of the Maine coast. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum 26:887–888. Washington,
DC, USA.
Preston, R.J. 1964. Ritual hangings: An aboriginal “survival”
in a northern North American trapping community.
Man 64:142–144.
Rand, S.T. 1971. Legends of the Micmacs. Johnson Reprint,
New York, NY, USA. 317 pp.
Robinson, B.S., and J.C. Ort. 2011. Paleoindian and Archaic
Period traditions: Particular explanations from
New England. Pp. 209–226, In K.E. Sassaman and
D.H. Holly Jr. (Eds.). Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology
as Historical Process. Amerind Studies in Archaeology,
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, USA.
352 pp.
Rowe, J. 1940. Excavations in the Waterside shell heap,
Frenchman's Bay, Maine. The Excavators’ Club, Cambridge,
MA, USA. 20 pp.
Sanger, D. 2003. Who lived in pre-European Maine? A
cosmology approach to social patterning on the landscape.
Northeast Anthropology 66:29–39.
Journal of the North Atlantic
B.S. Robinson and A.S. Heller
2017 Special Volume 10
104
Thwaites, R.G. (Ed.). 1896. Relation of what occurred in
New France in the year 1634, by Paul LeJeune. Pp.
5–32, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). Jesuit Relations and
Allied Documents of the Jesuit Missionaries in New
France: Quebec 1610–1791. Vol. 6. Burrows Brothers,
Cleveland, OH, USA. 324 pp.
Trigger, B.G. 1995. Expanding middle-range theory. Antiquity
69:449–458.
Trigger, B.G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought.
Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY, USA. 710 pp.
Tuck, J.A. 1976. Ancient People of Port au Choix: The Excavation
of an Archaic Indian Cemetery in Newfoundland.
Newfoundland Social and Economic Studies 17.
Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
261 pp.
VanPool, C.S., and T.L. Vanpool. 2003. Introduction:
Method, theory, and the essential tension. Pp. 1–4,
In T.L. Vanpool and C.S. VanPool (Eds.). Essential
Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory. The
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
197 pp.
Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. Cosmological deixis and
Amerindian perspectivism. The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 4:469–488.
Wabanaki Program of the American Friends Service
Committee. 2002. The Wabanakis of Maine and the
Maritimes: A Resource Book about Penobscot, Passamaquoddy,
Maliseet, Micmac, and Abenaki Indians.
Wabanaki Program of the American Friends Service
Committee, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
White, T. E. 1956. The study of osteological materials in
the Plains. American Antiquity 21:401–404.
Whitehead, R.H. 1991. The Old Man Told Us. Nimbus
Publishing Ltd., Halifax, NS, Canada. 385 pp.
Willoughby, C.C. 1905. A few ethnological specimens
collected by Lewis and Clark. American Anthropologist,
New Series 7:633–641.