The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology

ISSN: 1556-4894 (Print) 1556-1828 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

“Left for the Tide to Take Back”: Specialized Processing of Seals on ,

Robert C. Ingraham, Brian S. Robinson, Kristin D. Sobolik & A. Sky Heller

To cite this article: Robert C. Ingraham, Brian S. Robinson, Kristin D. Sobolik & A. Sky Heller (2015): “Left for the Tide to Take Back”: Specialized Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2015.1096868

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2015.1096868

Published online: 26 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uica20

Download by: [University of Maine - Orono] Date: 29 October 2015, At: 13:45 The Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 00:1–18, 2015 Copyright © 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2015.1096868

“Left for the Tide to Take Back”: Specialized Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

Robert C. Ingraham,1 Brian S. Robinson,2 Kristin D. Sobolik,3 and A. Sky Heller2 1Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 2Department of Anthropology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA 3College of Liberal Arts, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT

Archaeological investigations at Holmes Point West (Maine site 62-8) on the eastern Maine coast yielded evidence of different processing and disposal practices for two seal species: gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). The site is associated with a ritually charged place, near an unusual concentration of petroglyphs (rock art) on Machias Bay. The faunal remains are interpreted in the context of Algonquin oral traditions emphasizing respect for the spirit of hunted animals, including the return of the bones of marine animals to the sea. Short of finding discarded bones directly in the sea, it may be difficult to identify and discern the impact of such behaviors, with accidental losses of marine faunal elements on terrestrial occupation sites providing only muted evidence. However, other practices such as retention and protection of specific bone elements can provide a means to evaluate off-site deposition and relationships between ritual and subsistence practices. Here we explore evidence that preferential retention of the left temporal bone (including the distinctive auditory bulla) of the large gray seal represents intentional selection and retention of a skeletal element, with other bones likely left where butchered “for the tide to take back to the ocean.”

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 Keywords zooarchaeology, taphonomy-formation processes, Northeast, cosmology, coastal

Received 4 April 2015; accepted 3 September 2015. Address correspondence to Brian S. Robinson, Department of Anthropology, University of Maine, 5773 South Stevens Hall, Orono, ME 04469, USA. E-mail:[email protected] Color versions of one or more figures in this article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uica

1 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

INTRODUCTION

Among Algonquin people, including the Wa- banaki of the Maritime Peninsula of Canada and Maine, there are widespread accounts of the special treatment of animal bones in respect for the spirit of the animal, and for use as talismans. Some of these activi- ties may be identifiable in the archaeological record, providing evidence of cultural prac- tices that influence interpretations of faunal assemblagesfrombothritualandsubsistence contexts. One of the most systematic behav- iors is different treatment of terrestrial versus aquatic animals, in which bones of aquatic animals were returned to their habitat, elimi- nating them from the archaeological record. Disposal of marine mammal bone is investi- gated here by analysis of faunal remains from a shell midden site in Machias Bay in east- ern Maine (Figure 1). In particular we look at differential treatment of two pinnipeds, harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and gray seal Figure 1. Site locations and excavation plan. (Halichoerus grypus), that occur in unusual 1) Turner Farm, ; 2) abundance at the site. Great Spruce Island, 3) Holmes Point These two species of seal are repre- West, Machias Bay; 4) Teacher’s sented most strongly by the temporal bone Cove; and 5) Carson Site, Pas- of the skull, including the mastoid process samaquoddy Bay. Holmes Point and auditory bulla, both of which are durable West excavation plan compiled by anddistinctiveelements.Graysealsaremuch Kendra Bird. larger than harbor seals and comparison of two structurally similar species that differ in bone, as recorded for other species ethno- size allows us to evaluate cultural practices graphically, while the majority of the skeletal to explain different frequencies of bone el- remains are left at the kill site, or returned to ements. Although there are problems distin- the sea. guishing fragmentary post-cranial elements, each species of seal is represented by a dif- ferent set of skeletal elements. Gray seal ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND is represented by a high number of tem- Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 poral bones from the left side of the skull Efforts to identify symbolic patterning of fau- but with few other skull fragments or post- nal remains are gaining increasing attention, cranial bones from large individuals (Ingra- both cross-culturally and within specific cul- ham 2011a). Harbor seals are also strongly tural contexts (Gordon 1980; Sanger 2003; represented by the temporal bone but not Wells 2011; Wilson 1999). Among north- selected for side, and with greater frequency ern Algonquian-speaking people there are of other bone elements. Post-cranial bones widespread ethnographic accounts of spe- are more common for smaller bodied seals cial treatment of animal bone. General cate- (harbor and perhaps juvenile gray). If these gories of use include: 1) divination or fore- patterns are substantiated, the left temporal telling events, such as by reading cracks in bone of the gray seal may represent inten- burned bone to predict hunting locations tional selection and retention of a special (Speck 1935a:127; Tanner 1979:108, 128);

2 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

2) specialized processing of animals out of about a year apparently constitutes respect for the spirit of the animal, by re- no problem. Several informants in- turning water animal bones to the river or dicated that “after a while it doesn’t sea, or placement of bones of terrestrial an- matter what happens” to the hang- imals in trees, containers, or on platforms ings. (Preston 1964:144). (Le Jeune 1896:210; Martin 1978:82; Tanner 1979:153, 172); and 3) retention of a spe- Among the Rupert House Cree, beaver, cific skeletal element as a talisman or charm bear and goose were most regularly hung (Speck 1935b:30; Tanner 1979:141). above ground, while muskrat, fox, ermine Ethnographic accounts among the mod- and mink were not seen among the hang- ern Innu (Eastern Cree, Montagnais-Naskapi) ings observed by Preston (1964:144). Ears, of Quebec and Eastern Labrador provide es- claws, and a piece of skin from the chin of pecially detailed accounts of varied purposes a bear or the chest of a caribou are among andtreatments of animal bone.In veryrecent the varied materials that were saved. Skins times special bones were placed in tin cans from bear chins represented animals killed and plastic containers by the Mistassini Cree by a hunter and were accumulated over time, (Smith 2011:80). Asked to elaborate on ar- rather than abandoned (Preston 1964:144; chaeological implications, Smith wrote: Tanner 1979:170). Beaver received multi- ple treatments with skulls hung in trees and Waswanipi and Mistassini [Cree] other bones returned to the water. The em- both had the bone containers. It phasis here is that choice of animal part or was usually a different bone from bone is often species-specific and may serve each kind of animal placed in the a variety of purposes. bone container. It would be the The , Penobscot, same beaver bone, otter bone, rab- Maliseet, and Mi’kmaq constitute the mod- bit bone, etc. . . . The bone con- ern Algonquian-speaking Wabanaki people tainers were placed in an easy to of the Maritime Peninsula of Maine and get to place near each hunter’s Canada. They were hunter-gatherers with camp. . . . When it was time to the easternmost well-documented use of change camps the special bones corn and bean agriculture on the Kennebec were left in the one receptacle. River in Maine on the western boundary When they returned . . . the follow- of the Maritime Peninsula (Sidell 1999:202; ing year, the new bones were de- Figure 1). The Wabanaki share many oral posited in the same can. (Nicholas traditions that, with ethnographic accounts, N. Smith, personal communication include all of the general categories of bone July 5–7, 2011). treatment listed above. The shoulder blade and pelvis of muskrat and beaver are used in divination (Smith 1954:36; Speck 1935b:28). This is in accord with earlier observa- Respect for the spirit of the animal required Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 tions for the Rupert House band of Swampy special disposal practices, such as hanging Cree Indians on James Bay in Quebec, where the skulls of weasel, rabbit, woodchuck, bones were hung individually or placed on muskrat and porcupine (Sanger 2003:31; platforms, in cans and in cartons, many of Speck 1935b:23; Whitehead 1991:17). which were ultimately left behind: Talismans included the first vertebra of the deer, the baculum (penis bone) of bear and The outdoor hangings all stood at a raccoon, and the otolith of a codfish (Speck height of about seven to eight feet, 1935b:29, 30). The side of the bone element and this is consistent with the ex- is sometimes specified, such as retention of planation that the bones are hung the left hind foot of moose to treat certain “so the dogs won’t get them.” The medical conditions (Denys 1908:319; Merrill factthatsomehangingswilllastonly 1916:263).

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 3 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

Of particular importance to the topic of visibility of the process by exaggerating the this paper, Speck recorded for the Penob- contrasts. scot the return of bones to their proper envi- We are currently investigating varied in- ronment in accord with broader Algonquian terconnections between oral traditions, pet- traditions: roglyphs, faunal remains, environment and social contexts. Are petroglyphs associated with gathering places and feasts or are they To throw the carcass or bones care- “spiritually dangerous” and avoided by the lessly into a stream is especially of- uninitiated as suggested by Mark Hedden fensive to the land-dwelling animals (Soctomah 2009)? Seal petroglyphs are rare because the bones drifting down- compared to large cervids, human forms stream apprise so many creatures of and thunderbirds. Hedden (1996:17) sug- the neglect. The bones of aquatic gests the presence of mermen in Style 5 pet- animals, however, must be thrown roglyphs of the Late Ceramic period. This back into the water, each creature would support the Native origin in oral returning to its own element to be traditions for half-fish mermen (Eckstorm reborn there. (Speck 1935b:23) 1945:86)thataremoretransformationalthan edible, perhaps a better analogy for the With early recognition of the impor- context of petroglyphs as spirit figures, or tance of seals at Holmes Point West, a project shaman figures, rather than a subsistence was initiated by the Passamaquoddy Tribal record. The half-fish or half-seal mermen Historic Preservation Office in which Pas- are appropriate to petroglyphs at Machias samaquoddy students interviewed elderly Bay, which are located strictly within the seal hunters and their families, from before tidal zone between land and sea (Hedden the banning of sea mammal hunting in 1972 2004:328). (Soctomah and Robinson 2010). Former uses Large gatherings, in general, may be and importance of seal were documented, socially charged emphasizing adherence although no specific practices of bone reten- to ritual practices and spatial organization tion were noted. An earlier interview on por- (Whitelaw 1991:158). An account of youth- poise hunting recorded that “the bones of ful memories from about 1785 to 1790 theporpoisewereleftforthetidetotake records such a gathering in our research area back to the ocean” (Soctomah 2002:171). with: The potential impact of these processes on faunal assemblages is strengthened by their over one hundred birch canoes broad occurrence across Algonquian lands drawn up on the beach and shore includinglocalWabanakitribes,withoraltra- opposite Machiasport, while the In- ditions and historical documents as early as dians were in Camp Fires, phul- the 1630s (Le Jeune 1896:210). labaloos and dances, in the for- A personal talisman, unique to the user, est growth and wood-lands on the Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 may be indistinguishable once incorporated East side and towards Holmes’ Bay. into the midden, or it may be modified or (Drisko 1904:7) deposited in specialized deposits that bring it to attention. In the scenarios described above those bones that are collected to- These accounts set contexts but do not gether and subsequently abandoned at the predict specific bone selection patterns that site are likely to be represented by concen- likely varied over time. The archaeological trations of specific bone elements, making challenge is to identify patterns strongly them more archaeologically visible. In the enough expressed to distinguish between present case, disposal at sea should greatly natural and cultural factors, and then be- reduce the apparent importance of the af- tween more ideological and more utilitarian fected species, while simultaneous retention cultural factors, while recognizing the over- of specific bone elements may enhance the lapping nature of these categories.

4 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

THE HOLMES POINT WEST SITE, Although occupied throughout the Ce- MACHIASPORT, MAINE ramic period, from ca. 3000 BP, Early and Middle Ceramic period artifacts and features TheHolmesPointWestsiteisasoftshellclam are now covered by shell midden from the (Mya arenaria)middenthatliesontheeast Late Ceramic period and the early Contact side of Machias Bay in the town of Machias- period, ca. 1000–1700 AD. French Acadian port (Maine State archaeological designation occupation and trade is dated to the early 62-8).Itisonasouthwesterlyfacingwave-cut seventeenth century, overlapping with Pas- terrace (Figure 1), a gravel bench set against samaquoddy occupation of the bay (Robin- a marine clay hillside. Machias Bay has an av- son and Neuman 2009). erage tidal range of at least four meters with Based on field counts compiled from the extensive intertidal mudflats. The site is lo- 1973 field records (Ingraham 2011b), 38% cated at the transition between the mud flats of the bone excavated in 1973 came from and the rocky shoreline of the outer bay. The a single pit feature. Feature 73-3 (Figure 1) front of the site is eroding, progressively re- produced 1,616 bone fragments within an moving the earliest shell middens, leaving excavation unit covering four square me- more recently deposited shell on top of ear- ters, compared to 2,695 fragments from the lier occupations that were formerly at the remaining 24 square meters that were in back of the site. the shell midden. Thus, field counts suggest Machias Bay has the highest concentra- bone densities within the feature are, on av- tion of petroglyphs on the east coast of North erage, 3.7 times that of the midden, while America, currently being researched and recent counts (Table 1) suggest bone in the managed by the Passamaquoddy Tribal His- feature was closer to six times the density of toric Preservation Office (Soctomah 2009) the midden. Our recent excavations demon- and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust. The ma- strated this feature to be an isolated shell- jor petroglyph site is located on the opposite filled depression, three meters beyond the side of the bay from Holmes Point, and fea- edge of the shell midden. The feature also tures hundreds of petroglyphs from the ear- had a high quantity of rock. A large piece of liest to latest styles (ca. 3000 BP to 1600 AD) moose femur shaft from the lower part of the including masted ships and Christian crosses bone concentration was radiocarbon dated (Hedden 2002, 2004). to 430 ± 30 BP (Beta–408151, Cal AD 1430 The site was first excavated under the to 1485 at 2σ ). Of the faunal remains recov- direction of Robert MacKay for the Univer- ered in 1973, 56% of moose, 54% of gray seal, sity of Maine’s field school program in 1973. and 67% of porpoise bone were recovered More recent excavations were also con- from Feature 73-3. We cannot yet determine ducted as field schools by the University of the degree to which this feature represents Maine between 2008 and 2014 under the di- an event or an accumulation of bone over rection of Brian Robinson. Ongoing excava- time, but it is important as a well-preserved tion and analysis will test patterns identified bone assemblage that is less likely influenced Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 in the 1973 sample. Faunal remains from the by differential decay, and as the kind of fea- 1973 field school were comprehensively col- ture that may be especially informative with lectedbutwithoutscreening.Countsofbone regard to disposal practices, especially if re- fragments were recorded on field forms (In- lated to a large event. Bone counts from this graham 2011b). Diagnostic bone fragments feature are recorded as a subset of the total were individually labeled, which is fortunate bone from 1973 (Table 1). because they were used for several years for Radiocarbon dates on beaver bone and classroom instruction before being reassem- charred beechnut shell (Fagus sp.) from Fea- bled by laboratory manager Steven Bicknell, tures 21 and 28, respectively, date the initi- who recognized the early French occupation ation of the main midden deposit to 860 ± and compiled records and artifact catalogs in 30 BP (Beta-408150, Cal AD 1150 to 1250 at the early 1990s. 2σ ) and 740 ± 30 BP (Beta – 408153, Cal AD

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 5 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

Table 1. Faunal remains identified from Holmes Point West (1973), including the subsample from Feature 73-3 (adapted from Ingraham 2011:36). The element identified is that used for the MNI or when only a single element is identified.

1973 faunal assemblage Feature 73-3

Scientific name Common name NISP MNI Element NISP MNI

Terrestrial mammals Alces alces Moose 286 4 Astragalus 160 3 Canis familiaris Dog 140 3 Maxilla, ulna 12 1 Castor canadensis Beaver 92 3 Humerus 37 1 Mustela macrodon Sea mink 2 2 Mandible Ursus americanus Black bear 12 1 2 1 Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat 5 1 1 1 Lutra canadensis River otter 3 1 Mustela sp. Mink 2 1 1 1 Procyon lotor Racoon 2 1 Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine 1 1 Humerus Marine mammals Phocid sp. Seal (unidentified) 150 70 Halichoerus grypus Gray seal 65 11 Temporal 35 6 Phoca vitulina Harbor seal 52 11 Temporal 19 4 Phocoena phocoena Harbor porpoise 6 1 4 1 Total mammal bone 818 41 341 19 Birds Alca torda Razorbill 33 4 Humerus, ulna 14 2 Somateria mollissima Common eider 5 2 Humerus 5 2 Larus sp. Gull 3 1 Synsacrum Anatidae sp. Duck 2 1 Coracoid Anas platyrhyncos Mallard 1 1 Coracoid Aythya marila Greater scaup 1 1 Coracoid Phalacrocorax carbo Great cormorant 1 1 Tibiotarsus Total bird bone 46 11 19 4 Fish

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 Acipencer sp. Sturgeon 294 1 69 1 Gadus morhua Cod 17 1 14 1 Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish 2 1 Premaxilla 2 1 Anguilla rostrata American eel 1 1 Dentary 1 1 Total fish bone 314 4 86 4 Reptiles Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 25 1 2 1 Total unidentified bone 3,022 1,428 Site 62-8 totals 4,225 57 1,876 28

6 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

1250 to 1290 at 2σ). These Late Ceramic pe- comprised 9.4% of mammals by NISP (Spiess riod dates, accompanied by Contact period and Lewis 2001:78). artifacts, provide an important temporal and The two species of seal found in the cultural bracket for the faunal remains. Holmes Point assemblage contrast signifi- cantly in size. Harbor seals are moderately sexually dimorphic. Adult males average 5 feet long and 200 pounds (91kg) and grow ANALYSIS OF GRAY AND HARBOR SEAL to approximately 250 pounds (113 kg). Adult AT HOLMES POINT WEST WITH females average 154 pounds (70 kg) and can COMPARISONS reach 200 pounds (Katona et al. 1993:205). Adult gray seals are strongly sexually dimor- Faunal analysis at the Holmes Point West site phic with males from a northern England included traditional quantification for subsis- population (Bonner 1981:112) weighing an tence analysis with a focus on bone frequen- average of 513 pounds (233 kg), ranging be- cies and sidedness that could represent spe- tween 375 and 685 pounds (170–310 kg) cialized cultural practices (White 1956:401). and females weighing an average of 342 We use measures for the minimum number pounds (155 kg) and ranging between 220 of bone elements (MNE) to determine the and 420 pounds (100–190 kg). Western At- number of complete bones represented by lantic gray seals can be significantly larger. broken fragments, the minimum number of Males can weigh over 400 kg and females individuals (MNI) for each taxon or species over 250 kg (Hall 2002:522). Although adult calculated from the largest MNE by side for size ranges of harbor and gray seal are quite each taxon, and the number of individual different, the smaller harbor seal entirely specimens (NISP) or identified fragments as a overlaps with juvenile gray seals. Thus, the moregeneralcharacterizationoffaunalabun- size distinction is most useful for adult male dance (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:26; Lyman gray seals, and both size and age are difficult 1994:105). to use in highly fragmented collections. Ju- The 1973 excavations (38 square me- venile seals can be identified by unfused epi- ters) yielded over 4,000 bone fragments (In- physes, but surprisingly few epiphyses were graham 2011a). Results indicate an unusu- recovered. ally high proportion of seal for coastal sites Seals are represented primarily by the in Maine (Table 1), with an MNI of 11 gray auditory bulla and mastoid process, portions seal and 11 harbor seal for a total of 22 seals. of the temporal region of the skull (Table 2). The next highest MNI counts include moose This distinctive-looking bone (Figure 2) may (n = 4, Alces alces), razorbill (n = 4, Alca have attracted the attention of the hunters, torda), dog (n = 3, Canis familiaris), and much as it does archaeologists. It is often beaver (n = 3, Castor canadensis)among the most commonly identified seal element the 24 species identified (adapted from In- in archaeological assemblages (Spiess and graham 2011a:36). Seal constitutes 54% of all Lewis 2001:69; Stor˚a 2001:paper v:13) as it is Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 mammals based on MNI and 33% of identified durable and easily identified. Thus the high mammals based on NISP. Contrasting this numberofthiselementcouldbeexplainedin with other Ceramic period assemblages from part by taphonomic factors, requiring care- theeasternGulfofMaine,harborandhooded ful consideration of preservation, context seals at the Carson site on Passamaquoddy within the shell midden, and comparison of Bay comprised 6% of mammals by MNI and frequencies of different skeletal elements to 3.5% by NISP (Sanger 1987:66). At Teacher’s evaluate comparability between species. In Cove on , harbor seal, this case relatively high numbers of elements gray seal, and hooded seal comprised 9.1% from both harbor seal and gray seal allow fur- of mammals by MNI and 6.2% by NISP (Davis ther evaluation of bone frequencies of the 1978:36). At the Turner Farm site on North two seal species. Haven Island in Penobscot Bay, in the Ce- The temporal bone received the most ramic period stratum (occupation 4), seal intensive study because it was the most di-

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 7 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

Table 2. Phocid element frequencies from Site 62-8, Machias Bay, Maine. Table shows number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum number of individuals as identified from each element (MNI, adapted from Ingraham 2011a) as well as the frequencies of cut and masticated specimens.

Modification Harbor seal Gray seal Seal unident (Phoca (Halichoerus Total Masti- vitulina) grypus) (Phocid sp.) seal Cut cated

NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP NISP NISP

Cranial elements Temporal 22 11 21 11 44 — 87 6 1 Teeth 6 1 18 1 11 1 35 Mandible 11 4 11 Canine 3 2 5 3 1 1 9 Inner ear el. 3 1 1 1 4 Cranium unid. 1 1 1 Axial elements Vertebra 1 1 23 1 24 1 Innominate 7 3 7 Sacrum 1 1 1 Appendicular Elements Humerus 1 1 1 1 19 12 21 8 1 Phalange 2 1 13 1 15 1 Ulna 31323191 Metacarpal 4142811 Metatarsal 3 1 4 1 7 2 Femur 2 1 4 2 6 Scapula 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 2 Tibia 2 1 3 1 5 1 Tarsal 3 1 2 1 5 Radius 4 2 4 Carpal 1 1 1 Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 Fibula 1 1 1 Totals 52 23 65 26 150 37 267 19 7

agnostic and abundant seal element. The on variable fragment size and recognition, NISP for the temporal bone (n = 87) is emphasizing the importance of the MNE four times higher than the most abundant counts. Initially, seal bones were identified post-cranial paired element, the humerus following methods used by Spiess and Lewis (n = 21), which is another particularly (2001:29, 70) for the Turner Farm site, re- durable element (Spiess and Lewis 2001:70). lying primarily on the shape of the external However, NISP ratios are highly dependent auditory meatus (EAM, a component of the

8 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

Figure 2. Basal view of harbor seal (top) and gray seal (bottom) left temporal bones illustrating locationsoffeaturesdiscussedinthetext.Thethreeregionslabeledattopare1)theauditory bulla, 2) mastoid process, and 3) the mandibular fossa and remaining temporal portions. Drawings at right show only the mastoid process (same orientation), with two muscle attachments (A and B) and diagnostic features. Photographs courtesy of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University.

temporal bone) and dentition, while post- arch. Structures associated with Region 3 are cranial speciation relied more on robustness less dense and less distinctive if fragmented. (Stor˚a2001:21).Subsequently,effortwasput Region 1, the auditory bulla, has a great into identifying additional diagnostic charac- deal of individual variability within and be- teristics of the temporal bone. tween species dependent on age and sex. Multiple individuals of both gray and har- The shape of the EAM is diagnostic in most bor seal were inspected at the Museum of cases. In gray seal, this structure is wider and Comparative Zoology at Harvard University rounder and typically does not project as far Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 (MCZ). Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) ele- laterally as in harbor seal. The EAM of har- ments were also examined and determined bor seal is more pointed and often shows a to be absent in the Holmes Point archaeolog- distinct notch or flute running laterally over ical sample. For the purposes of taxonomic the apex of the meatus, a feature not noted identification, and MNI quantification, the in any gray seal examined. temporal bone was divided into three re- Region 2, the mastoid process, is the gions that are often broken apart and iden- largest and densest portion of the tempo- tified separately (Figure 2). Region 1 consists ral element, and also possesses the most di- of the tympanic chamber or bulla, including agnostic structures. Four species-indicators the EAM, Region 2 the dense, C-shaped mas- were identified on the exterior surface toid process, and Region 3 the mandibular of the mastoid process. Two ridges occur fossa, post-glenoid process, and zygomatic along the outer edge of muscle attachments

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 9 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

along the posterior edge of the mastoid pro- junction is more acute and slightly stepped cess, referred to as Ridge 1 (R1) and Ridge 2 compared to gray seal. (R2).Ridge1islocatedalongtheedgeofmus- The preceding criteria allowed more cleattachmentA(Figure2).IngraysealRidge thorough identification of seal species based 1 is located farther from muscle attachment on the temporal bone and provided multiple B, with the intervening area between mus- indicators for most specimens. MNE was de- cle attachments forming a pronounced bulge terminedforeachofthethreemostabundant that is clearly visible on the posterior/lateral diagnostic criteria by physically comparing side view (Figure 2). In harbor seal Ridge them to avoid replication of elements. MNI 1 is located closer to muscle attachment B was then determined from the highest MNE and the entire surface of the mastoid process by side for all the diagnostic criteria, yield- is decidedly flatter when viewed from the ing an MNI of 11 gray seal and 11 harbor side (Figure 2). The thickness of the mastoid seal (Table 3). Chi square probabilities were process, from basal to interior surface is pro- calculated to identify significant differences portionally greater in gray seal, readily visi- between left and right sides (Table 3). ble when bone elements are separated from The temporal bone is a durable element; the skull in both young and adult individuals. we therefore considered post-depositional Ridge 2 occurs along the front or anterior taphonomic factors to determine whether edge of the mastoid process along muscle at- numbers could be relied upon as indicators tachment B (Figure 2, right). In gray seal this of cultural practices, including butchering, muscle attachment forms a deeper ravine in transport, and retention of selected bone ele- the mastoid process and a correspondingly ments. Left and right sides of paired elements sharper ridge. are useful in this regard because they would The point at which the mastoid contacts not be subject to differential preservation is- the occipital, here called Junction 1 (J1), is an sues. Harbor seal show a higher, but not sta- excellent species indicator (Figure 2). Seals, tistically significant occurrence of right tem- aswellasotherseamammals,possessamuch poral bone, while gray seal show a 5.5 to 1 less continuous contact between auditory preference for the left side based on MNE structures and other cranial elements than for each side (Table 3). The high propor- theirterrestrialcounterparts.Thisisbelieved tion of left gray seal temporal bones in the to be an adaptation that limits transmission of 1973 sample provides an important dimen- sounds from one side of the skull to the other sion for identifying potential cultural prac- while underwater (Møhl 1968). As a result, tices, as discussed below. contactbetweenthemastoidprocessandthe Mandibles are clearly distinguishable be- occipital (Junction 1) is rather small and well tween harbor and gray seals because harbor defined. No permanent fusion between the seal molars have two roots while gray seal temporal package andthe occipital bone was molarshaveone.Allidentifiedsealmandibles observed in any reference specimens. In har- are harbor seal. After reconstructing frag- bor seal, Junction 1 on the mastoid process ments the NISP for seal mandibles is nine

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 is a small circular or hemispherical impres- with an MNE of four right and two left sion. In gray seal Junction 1 is much larger mandibles for an MNI of four harbor seals and leaves a triangular impression. represented by mandibles. The absence of Junction 2 (J2) is located where Region gray seal mandibles is an important contrast 1 (the bulla) comes into contact with Region with the high number of left temporal bones 2 (the mastoid process). This junction is also because mandibles are easily identified, very very diagnostic, especially so because it is durable (Lyman 1994:table 7.7), and part of visible on both elements should they sep- thesamebodypart. arate. Junction 2 in gray seal is wider and Post-cranial bones were identified rounder, and when viewed from the side is where possible with comparative samples more nearly perpendicular to the horizontal (Table 2). The humerus was the most plane of the skull. In harbor seal Junction 2 abundant paired post-cranial element (NISP is narrower (Figure 2) while the angle of the n = 21), and is described in more detail to ad-

10 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

Table 3. Seal temporal bone by side using MNE counts for the most abundant diagnostic traits described above, with the greatest MNE equal to the MNI for the species. Significant chi-squared values are bolded.

Temporal bone Chi-squared feature Left Right Total p

Gray seal NISP 17 5 22 Meatus MNE 11 1 12 .004 Ridge 2 MNE 9 1 10 .011 Junction 2 MNE 6 2 8 .157 Greatest MNE 11 2 .013 Harbor seal NISP 9 13 22 Meatus MNE 0 3 3 .083 Ridge 2 MNE 6 11 17 .225 Junction 2 MNE 4 8 12 .248 Greatest MNE 6 11 .225

dress age and taxonomic identification prob- Figure 4 shows a scatter plot of mea- lems. Epiphyseal fusion could only rarely be surements from the right humerus of mod- used as a means for determining age because ern comparative specimens and from left the humeri were dominated by midshaft frag- and right archaeological specimens. Signif- ments. In most cases age and species identi- icant overlap exists between species, due fication were restricted to a limited set of in part to the highly dimorphic nature of measurements. Two roughly perpendicular gray seal. Measurements from two smaller measurements were taken on the midshaft (juvenile) gray seal clustered with those of of the diaphysis with “diameter A” (the harbor seal, leaving the single large gray greater of the two measurements) taken seal (probably male) as the only outlier. at the narrowest point along the anterior- This provides a very limited sample with posterior face and “diameter B” measured which to assign species identifications. As- at the narrowest point above the distal ar- suming the harbor seal range to be rep- ticular condyles (the lesser of the two mea- resentative, dimensions significantly above surements). Given the twist in the widest the range of harbor seal are likely gray

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 portion of the shaft from the proximal to seal and those significantly below the small- distal ends, measurements had to be taken est adult harbor seal are likely juvenile at carefully aligned locations (Figure 3). (Figure 4). These are variations on standard measure- Only one archaeological specimen (No. ments to accommodate the midshaft frag- 19.73) fell clearly above the size of the largest ments (Stor˚a 2001:20). Measurements were harbor seal. Most archaeological specimens taken on modern elements from six harbor clustered in the ambiguous area and were seal (two with unattached epiphyses, two thus not identifiable to species. One excep- with epiphyses attached but unfused, and tion (No. 39.99) was identified as probable two with fused epiphyses) and three gray harbor seal within the lower range of the seal (two with unfused and one with fused ambiguous region due to preservation of the epiphyses) from the MCZ and University fused distal epiphysis, demonstrating near- of Maine comparative collections (Table 4). maturity despite small size. The distal end of

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 11 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

Figure 3. Measurements taken for phocid humerii on a near-adult juvenile harbor seal (UM-BSR), with typical archaeological midsection showing orientation of measurements. As defined in the text, “a” is the greater and “b” is the lesser diameter.

the humerus fuses before, but close to, ma- shaft fragments, at least 45% (9/20) of the turity (Stor˚a 2001, paper 1:10, 19). specimens are juvenile, but the entire range Despite the tentative nature of these ob- of the harbor seal overlaps with juvenile gray servations, the distribution poses interesting seal and therefore remains ambiguous. The questions. If correct, when limited to mid- dominance of left temporal bones and ab-

Table 4. Specimen source and measurements of modern harbor and gray seal humerii.

Midshaft diameter (mm)

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 Institution Catalog # Species Sex Epiphyses Greater Lesser

MCZ 51488 H. grypus U Fused 26.3 21.9 MCZ 63301 H. grypus U Unattached 17.5 14.0 MCZ 65950 H. grypus U Unattached 17.2 14.6 MCZ BOM - 1142 P. vitulina U Unattached 18.0 16.8 MCZ BOM - 5144 P. vitulina M Fused 17.7 15.1 MCZ BOM - 1738 P. vitulina U Fused 16.9 15.6 MCZ 62198 P. vitulina F Attached 16.4 13.7 UMaine BSR P. vitulina U Attached 15.7 13.8 UMaine M43 P. vitulina U Unattached 13.6 11.8

12 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

Figure 4. Results of the quantitative analysis of harbor and gray seal humerus shaft diameters. Data for modern comparative samples can be found in Table 4.

sence of mandibles for gray seal contrasts sig- able portions of the skeleton (Lyman 1994:ta- nificantlywithharborseal.Doesthiscontrast ble 7.7). In seal, the midshaft area of the apply to post-cranial bones as well? Large humerus is also durable and contrasts with gray seals are not well represented among that of terrestrial mammals because it is filled

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 humerii, but are juvenile seal bones treated with relatively dense cancellous bone. It re- differently between species? Are post-cranial mains anomalous that so few distal and prox- gray seal bones more systematically left at imal ends are preserved, especially since dog butchery locations than harbor seal? We chewing is scarce (Table 2). cannot answer these questions with the present analysis. Most humerii fragments in the 1973 as- INTERPRETATION AND COMPARISONS semblage preserved only the midshaft area, with only two distal articular ends preserved The faunal sample from the 1973 excava- from an NISP of 21. This is in itself notable tions at Holmes Point West is dominated by because the distal humerus is considered seal species (based on MNI) which are in to be one of the more durable and identifi- turn represented principally by the temporal

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 13 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

Figure 5. Left (a–e) and right (f, g) temporal fragments of gray seal from the bone concentration in Feature 73-3, with diagnostic characteristics labeled, representing five of six gray seals from this feature.

bone of the skull. Since temporal bones are limiting factor if far less durable bones are noted for their durability, the problem is to well preserved in the same preservation con- determine whether durability is a sufficient texts. Dog mastication is another prominent

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 cause for high numbers. The majority of process for isolating dense bone. Two dog temporal bones identified to species are burials, plus additional elements from at least large complex masses that are consistently one additional dog, indicate their presence preserved among the different regions, at the site. However, only 2.6% of seal bones such as those from Feature 73-3 (Figure 5). (n = 7) show evidence of chewing. Al- The isolated central mass of the mastoid is though durability and visibility may inflate both dense and easily recognized. However, the number of seal temporal bones over temporal bones within features and midden less durable elements, diagnostic bones of are associated with much more fragile ele- other species such as beaver and moose ments. Feature 73-3 contained both the high- are also dense and very distinctive, but do est proportion of most fish species present not dominate the assemblage. There is no and the majority of gray seal temporal bones reason to suspect the relative dominance of from the site (Table 1). Durability is not a seal is a preservation issue.

14 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

In gray seal there is a statistically signif- Uribe 1984:64). Alternatively, larger animals icant dominance of the left temporal bone may be subjected to heavier butchering prac- over the right. Curiously there are more right tices to transport them in smaller pieces that than left temporal bones among harbor seals, include most of the major bone elements (Ly- but the difference is not statistically signifi- man 1992). The more diverse assemblage of cant within the 1973 assemblage (Table 3). body parts for smaller bodied seals, perhaps The dominance of left temporal bones in including juvenile gray seal, provides a com- gray seal was an important factor in devel- parative case for smaller animals that may oping the present model because sidedness have been brought back to the site whole. is not an issue of preservation or recognition. It is entirely possible that it was traditional Discrepancy in side among limb bones might practice to return harbor seal bones to the represent systematic patterns of meat distri- sea as well, but that transport of smaller bution among kin, but the left temporal bone seal to the site resulted in a broader distri- in seal is neither a whole skull nor part of a bution of bones from the entire body, in- particularly meaty package. At present this cluding mandibles and limb bones that are pattern is significant through the Late Ce- largely absent among large gray seal. In this ramic period at the site level, suggesting a case the dominance of temporal bones might systematic cultural pattern that we may ex- again represent intentional selection, but the pect to find at different sites. Duplication of equal retention of left and right sides makes this pattern in future excavations at Holmes it more difficult to distinguish the practice Point West and at other sites is an important from other taphonomic factors. test of the proposed cultural selection factor. Efforts to correlate seal bone elements The absence of gray seal mandibles from with meat utility indexes have met with the 1973 excavations is also not likely a mixed results. Unusually high proportions of taphonomic issue. Harbor seal mandibles are skull bones are among the factors at several well represented (NISP = 11) with an MNE sites that weaken correlation with the pro- of three mandibles in Feature 73-3 alone, posed utility index (Lyman et al. 1992:544, including a matched set of left and right 547). It has been suggested that high-quality mandibles from a large harbor seal. Teeth brain fat content may have resulted in a of both species are common and the pres- high level of transported skull parts, whether ence of isolated teeth without maxilla or transported by humans or other animals mandibles in gray seal is also of interest. (Stiner 1991:471). The fact that Middle Pa- Post-cranial bones are less common and leolithic hominids and scavenging hyenas less identifiable between seal species. The selectively brought horns and heads back highest MNI of post-cranial elements is 12 to their lairs (Stiner 1991:464) demonstrates for the midshaft of the humerus compared to the wide variety of factors that influence ar- 22 seal identified by the temporal bone. Al- chaeological patterning. though species identification of post-cranial There are numerous cases worldwide in bones based on size is limited, there are whichanimalskullsareretainedforpurposes

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 comparatively few bones the size of a male that are not strictly utilitarian. Sanger and gray seal, even though these bones should his students excavated several sites in the be well preserved and easily recovered and Roque Island group in Englishmen Bay, just identified. More research on post-cranial west of Machias Bay. On the Middle to Late bones is needed. Ceramic period Great Spruce Island site (Fig- The average weight of a gray seal is over ure 1) they found distinctly higher propor- twice that of a harbor seal, and thus may tions of skull elements within living areas, prompt different processing and transport and more post-cranial elements in the mid- methods. Larger animals are often butchered den. Within the house area of the site, there in the field with a lesser variety of bone ele- were 12 bones of the extinct sea mink (Mead ments returned to the occupation area, pre- et al. 2000), 11 of which were mandibles, sumably those with “high utility parts,” asso- with nine coming from the left side. Only ciated with more meat, marrow, and bone three post-cranial bones were recovered, all grease (Binford 1984:94; Klein and Cruz- from the midden area (Sanger and Chase

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 15 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

1983). The 1973 assemblage from Holmes widelydistributedAlgonquian-speakingpeo- Point West included a total of two sea mink ple, had a variety of practices directed to re- bones, both right mandibles. The sea mink spectingthespiritofhuntedanimals.Someof may have been considered a marine animal, thesepractices,inparticularthereturnofani- with retention of specifically sided cranial mal bones to the domain in which they lived, parts, similar to the gray seal. continued into recent times. Returning the Three categories of symbolic treat- bones of marine animals back to the sea may ment of animal bones were presented: 1) result in systematic reduction of evidence divination; 2) specialized processing of ani- for aquatic animals, without obvious means malsoutofrespectforthespiritoftheanimal; of quantifying the loss. Here we propose a and 3) use of talismans. If the symbolic use case in which offsite disposal of bones from of gray seal is supported by future research, large gray seal may have been accompanied the 1973 excavations also provide a context by retention of a specific element, the left for evaluating more specific uses. There are temporal bone. If correct, the case presents cut marks from butchering on six temporal an exaggerated contrast in skeletal elements bones, but no evidence of intentional work- that is not explainable in terms of meat utility ing or wear patterns, suggesting they were or natural taphonomy, and that is testable at not obviously curated or carried for long pe- this and other sites. Were it not for the se- riods of time, as talismans or amulets some- lected temporal bone, the minimal count of times are. gray seal may have been two or three, rather The concentration of gray seal temporal than eleven. Similar practices may have influ- bones in Feature 73-3 is particularly interest- enced deposition of harbor seal, but if more ing as they were buried with a substantial whole harbor seals were returned to the site quantity of subsistence bone, with burial be- the contrast in skeletal parts would be less ing one means of protection against dog scav- extreme. enging. Feature 73-3 produced six of the left Suchcasesmaybecommonbutoftendif- temporal bones used to establish the MNI of ficult to identify, requiring large sample sizes 11 gray seals, three others were widely dis- or repeated instances of specialized context. persed isolated finds, and two came from the Each case increases visibility of the cultural area of Feature 73-1 (Figure 1). Feature 73-1 contexts of faunal remains, contributing to was a pronounced pit/hearth that produced aspects of identity, social boundaries and a large quantity of unburned bone with 10 the integration of oral traditions, helping to burned fragments of green bottle glass sur- account for some of White’s (1956) statisti- rounding the feature, suggesting a Contact cally significant but unexplained variations period age. Thus, two hearth/refuse pits pro- of bone frequencies. duced 73% of the left temporal bones of the gray seal, consistent with specialized dis- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS posal practices, perhaps associated with re- spect for the spirit of the animal so widely re- The faunal remains from 1973 were Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 ported in ethnographic records. Our recent excavated under the direction of Robert excavations have produced sheet refuse, sur- Mackay and the University of Maine field face hearths and a variety of features, but no school. Eric Lahti excavated Feature 73-3 bone-filledpitscomparabletotheFeature73- in 1973 and assisted in relocating those ex- 3. We are currently piece plotting selected cavations in 2008. The faunal sample was bones of seal and sea mink in order to better rescued from classroom use by Steven Bick- resolve their associations. nell. Of the authors, Ingraham conducted the analysis of the 1973 material that provided the basis of the study, Robinson SUMMARY elaborated on cultural and site interpre- tation, Sobolik was the lead zooarchae- Oral traditions indicate that the Wabanaki ologist, and Heller, a doctoral candidate of the Maritime Peninsula, among more in zooarchaeology, worked on both the

16 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015 Processing of Seals on Machias Bay, Maine

1973 and subsequently excavated faunal can Rock Art Research Association, Occasional samples. We thank the Passamaquoddy Paper 2. Tribal Historic Preservation Office for Hedden, M. 2002. Contact period petroglyphs in collaboration on the Machias Petroglyph Machias Bay, Maine. Archaeology of Eastern Project, and private land owners who have North America 30:1–20. been very generous over the years. Arthur Hedden, M. 2004. Passamaquoddy Shamanism and rock art in Machias Bay, Maine. In The Spiess consulted on seal bone identifica- Rock Art of Eastern North America (C. Diaz- tion. David Sanger gave permission to cite Granados and J. R. Duncan, eds.):319–343. unpublished papers, Nicholas Smith to cite Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. personal communications, and Donald Ingraham, R. 2011a. Specialized Taphonomies Soctomah to use a quotation as the title from an Eastern Maine Shell Midden: Faunal of the paper. Ann Surprenant, Matthew Analysis from site 62-8, Holmes Point West, Betts, Mark Hedden and three anonymous Machias, Maine. Master’s Thesis. Orono: Uni- reviewers provided valuable comments. versity of Maine. Research on this project was funded by the Ingraham, R. 2011b. Mapping and Distribu- Climate Change Institute and the Maine tion Analysis of the 1973 University of Maine Excavations at the Site 62-8, Homes Academic Prominence Initiative (MAPI), Point West, Machias Bay, Maine. Unpublished which supports the field school. The authors manuscript. Orono: University of Maine, An- are responsible for all shortcomings. thropology Department. Katona, S. K., V. Rough, and D. T. Richardson. 1993. A Field Guide to Whales, Porpoises, and REFERENCES Seals from Cape Cod to Newfoundland.Wash- ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Binford, L. R. 1984. Faunal Remains from the Klein, R. G. and K. Cruz-Uribe. 1984. The Analysis Klasies River Mouth. New York: Academic of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bonner, N. W. 1981. Grey Seal Halichoerus gry- Le Jeune, P. 1896. Relation of what occurred in pus Fabricus 1791. In Handbook of Marine New France in the year 1634. In Jesuit Rela- Mammals: Volume 2 Seals (S.H.Ridgwayand tions and Allied Documents of the Jesuit Mis- R. J. Harrison, eds.):111–144. New York: Aca- sionaries in New France: Quebec 1910-1791, demic Press. Vol. 6 (R. G. Thwaites, ed.). Cleveland: Burrows Davis, S. 1978. Teachers Cove: A Prehistoric Site Brothers. on Passamaquoddy Bay, .De- Lyman, R. L. 1992. Historic seal and sea-lion partment of Historical and Cultural Resources, butchering on the southern Northwest Coast. New Brunswick Archaeology 1, Number 1, American Antiquity 57(2):246–261. Fredericton. Lyman, R. L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy.Cam- Denys, N. 1908. The Description and Natural bridge: Cambridge University Press. History of the Coasts of North America (Aca- Lyman, R. L., J. M. Saville, and P. Whitridge. 1992. dia) (W. F. Ganong, ed.). Toronto: The Cham- Derivation and application of a meat utility in- plain Society. (Orig. pub. 1672.) dexforPhocidSeals.JournalofArchaeological Drisko, G. W. 1904. Narrative of the Town of Science 19:531–555. Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 Machias: The Old and the New, the Early and Martin, C. 1978. Keepers of the Game: Indian- the Late. Machias, ME: Press of the Republican. Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade. Eckstorm, F. H. 1945. Old John Neptune and Berkley: University of California Press. Other Maine Indian Shamans. Portland, ME: Mead, L. I., A. E. Spiess, and K. D. Sobolik. 2000. The Southworth-Anthoensen Press. Skeleton of extinct North American Sea Mink Gordon, D. 1980. Reflections on refuse: A con- (Mustela macrodon). Quaternary Research temporary example from James Bay, Quebec. 53 (2):247–262. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 4:83–97 Merrill, S. 1916. The Moose Book: Facts and Sto- Hall, A. 2002. Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus. ries from Northern Forests.NewYork:E.P. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (W. F. Dutton & Company. Perrin, B. Wursig, and J. G. M. Thewissen, Møhl, B. 1968. Hearing in Seals. In Behavior eds.):522–524. New York: Academic Press. and Physiology of Pinnipeds (R. J. Harrison, Hedden, M. 1996. 3,500 Years of Shamanism in R. C. Hubbard, R. S. Peterson, C. E. Rice, and Maine rock art. In Rock Art of the Eastern R. J. Schusterman, eds.):172–195. New York: Woodlands (C. H. Faulkner, ed.):7–24. Ameri- Meredith Corporation.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 17 Robert C. Ingraham et al.

Preston, R. J. 1964. Ritual hangings: An aboriginal Speck, G. F. 1935a. Naskapi: The Savage Hunters ‘survival’ in a Northern North American trap- of the Labrador Peninsula. Norman: Univer- ping community. Man 64:142–144. sity of Oklahoma Press. Robinson, B. and L. Neuman. 2009. Three-year Speck, G. F. 1935b. Penobscot tales and reli- progress report for an archaeological coastal gious beliefs. The Journal of American Folk- research program at the University of Maine. lore 48(187):1–107. Submitted to the Office of the Provost, Univer- Spiess, A. E. and Lewis, R. A. 2001. The Turner sity of Maine, Orono. Farm Fauna: 5000 Years of Hunting and Fish- Sanger, D. 1987. The Carson Site and the Late Ce- ing in Penobscot Bay, Maine. Occasional Pub- ramic Period in Passamaquoddy Bay, New lications in Maine Archaeology (11). Augusta: Brunswick. Mercury Series, Archaeological Maine State Museum. Survey of Canada, Paper No. 135. Stiner, M. C. 1991. Food Procurement and Sanger, D. 2003. Who lived in pre-European transport by human and non-human preda- Maine?: A cosmology approach to social pat- tors. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: terning on the landscape. Northeast Anthro- 455–482. pology 66:29–39. Stor˚a, J. 2001. Reading Bones. Stone Age Hunters Sanger, D. and T. Chase. 1983. An introduction and Seals in the Baltic. Stockholm Studies in to the Roque Island Group, Maine. Paper pre- Archaeology 21. sented to the Canadian Archaeological Asso- Tanner, A. 1979. Bringing Home Animals: Reli- ciation, April 1983. Manuscript on file at An- gious Ideology and Mode of Production of the thropology Department, University of Maine, Mistassini Cree Hunters.NewYork:St.Mar- Orono. tin’s Press. Sidell, N. A. 1999. Prehistoric plant use in Wells, P. J. 2011. Ritual activity and the for- Maine: Paleoindian to Contact Period. In Cur- mation of faunal assemblages at two Groswa- rent Northeast Paleoethnobotany (J. P. Hart, ter Palaeoeskimo sites at Port au Choix. In ed.):191–223.NewYorkStateMuseumBulletin The Cultural Landscapes of Port au Choix: 494. Precontact Hunter-Gatherers of Northwest- Smith, N. N. 1954. Wabanaki dances. Bulletin ern Newfoundland (M. A. P. Renouf, ed.):65– of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 89. New York: Springer Science & Business 16(2):29–36. Media. Smith, N. N. 2011. Three Hundred Years in White, T. E. 1956. The study of osteological Thirty: Memoir of Transition with the Cree materials in the plains. American Antiquity Indians of Lake Mistassini. Solon, ME: Polar 21(4):401–404. Bear & Company. Whitehead, R. H. 1991. The Old Man Told Us. Soctomah, D. 2002. Passamaquoddy at the Turn Halifax: Nimbus Publishing Ltd. of the Century. Princeton, ME: Passamaquoddy Whitelaw, T. 1991. Some dimensions of vari- Tribe of Indian Township. ability in the social organization of commu- Soctomah, D. (ed.). 2009. Petroglyph Manage- nity space among foragers. In Ethnoarchae- ment Plan for Machias Bay: Protection and ological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Documenting the Uniqueness of Machias Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Stud- Bay. Report to the National Park Service, Tribal ies (C. Gamble and W. A. Boismer, eds.):139– Historic Preservation Office—Passamaquoddy 188. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Tribe. Prehistory. Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 13:45 29 October 2015 Soctomah, D. and B. Robinson. 2010. Student in- Wilson, B. 1999. Displayed or concealed? terviews: Passamaquoddy seal hunting oral Cross cultural evidence for symbolic and tradition project. Application for approval of ritual activity depositing Iron Age animal research with human subjects. Orono: Univer- bones. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(3): sity of Maine. 217–326.

18 VOLUME 00 • ISSUE 0 • 2015