Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
70
Introduction
Archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence indicates
that ancestral Wabanaki (Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik,
and Peskotomuhkatiyik) living in what are
now the Maritime Provinces of Canada, during the
Maritime Woodland period (ca. 3200 cal B.P.–490
cal B.P.),1 hunted sea mammals on the marine shorelines
of all three provinces. Earlier ethnographic
accounts, such as Hoffman’s (1955) ethnography
of the Mi’kmaq, emphasized the marine aspect of
subsistence and diet. Mid-20th-century ethnohistoric
and archaeological interpretations (e.g., Burley
1981, Davis 1991, Nash and Miller 1987, Sanger
1987) tended to emphasize riverine and terrestrial
resources, and to downplay the importance of marine
resources in prehistoric and early historic period
subsistence. More-recent examinations of shellbearing
sites (e.g., Betts et al. 2017 [this volume],
Black 2004) have re-emphasized the importance of
littoral adaptations.
My research in the insular Quoddy Region (Fig. 1)
of southern New Brunswick (Bishop and Black 1988;
Black 1993, 2000a, 2004) indicates that, in some
areas of the Maritimes, Maritime Woodland people
specialized in exploiting resources from the marine
food chain, including sea mammals, accessible in
and from the littoral zone. Here, I further examine
subsistence in the Maritimes with particular reference
to sea mammal hunting in the Quoddy Region. I place
this examination in the contexts of modern sea mammal
distributions and natural history, ethnohistoric
evidence for exploitation of sea mammals, interpretations
of sea mammal remains from archaeological
sites in areas adjacent to the Maritime Provinces, and
the current crisis in erosion of the Maritimes coastal
archaeological record.
Sea Mammal Remains in Maritimes Sites
Table 1 presents a summary of sea mammal
remains identified from Maritimes prehistoric archaeological
sites. Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution
of sites from which sea mammals have been
reported. This information is qualitative and may not
be exhaustive. However, it provides a preliminary
basis for inferences about sea mammal hunting.
Taxonomy and natural history of Maritimes sea
mammals
Numerous sea mammal species—belonging to
two taxonomic orders, Carnivora and Cetacea—
currently are found in the waters surrounding the
Maritime Provinces. Since the taxonomy and natural
history of these species have been presented recently
in both the biological (e.g., Gaskin 1983, McAlpine
1990, Naughton 2012, Squires 1968) and archaeological
(Black 2003, Spiess 2003, Spiess and Lewis
2001:117–120) literature, I summarize this information
only briefly here.
Pinnipeds. Five species of pinnipeds (order
Carnivora) have been identified in archaeological
assemblages; four of these are phocid seals. Two
phocid species are resident and occur on all coasts of
the Maritimes. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are relatively
small, with adult males weighing up to 148
kg. They range from the eastern Arctic to the central
Atlantic coast. Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) are
substantially larger than harbor seals—with adult
males weighing as much as 310 kg—and exhibit
more sexual dimorphism. They range from Labrador
to New Hampshire.
Other phocid species are present seasonally.
Harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) are somewhat
Archaeological Sea Mammal Remains from the
Maritime Provinces of Canada
David W. Black*
Abstract - Faunal assemblages from Maritime Woodland period shell-bearing archaeological sites in the Maritime Provinces
show that people living on marine shorelines practiced foraging/collecting adaptations focused on the resources of
the littoral zone and inshore waters. The hunting of sea mammals, especially the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and the grey
seal (Halichoerus grypus), was a significant aspect of this adaptation. Evidence suggests that people hunted seals when
the animals were hauled out on intertidal ledges, during their breeding, pupping, and moulting seasons: spring/summer for
harbour seals and mid-December–early spring for grey seals. Stratigraphic, culture-historical, zooarchaeological, and paleodietary
information suggest that the hunting of sea mammals peaked during the Middle Maritime Woodland and earlier
Late Maritime Woodland periods (2260−930 cal B.P.).
North American East Coast Shell Midden Research
Journal of the North Atlantic
*Department of Anthropology, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 5A3;
dwblack@unb.ca.
2017 Special Volume 10:70–89
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
71
larger than harbor seals, with adult males weighing
as much as 180 kg. They range from the eastern
Arctic to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Hooded seals
(Cystophora cristata) are larger than other seal species
in the waters around the Maritimes—with adult
males weighing up to 400 kg—but are present in
smaller numbers. Both harp seals and hooded seals
are adapted to seasonally frozen seas; they migrate
into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to northeastern
Nova Scotia in late winter and spring. There are occasional
extralimital records of harp seals and hooded
seals in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy (e.g.,
Lotze and Milewski 2002:88, Naughton 2012:683).
Keenlyside (1982:93) reported a tentative identification
of another phocid species, the bearded seal
(Erignathus barbatus), at the MacDonald Farm site
on Prince Edward Island (Table 1). This ice-adapted
species is generally restricted to Arctic waters with
rare extralimital records for the northern Gulf of St.
Lawrence (e.g., Gosselin and Boily 1994). Since
this identification is not firm, bearded seals are not
considered further here.
The fifth pinniped species, the walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus), is currently restricted to the shallower
portions of continental shelves in the eastern
Arctic. Walrus are much larger than seals, with
adult males ranging in size to 760 kg, and exhibit
substantial sexual dimorphism. Formerly, walrus
were common in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, especially
on the Magdalen Islands and Miscou Island,
were present on the Cape Breton and Sable Island
shores of Nova Scotia, and were distributed southward
as far as Massachusetts (Miller 1990). They
were extirpated from more southerly parts of their
range after European contact.
Cetaceans. Several cetacean species are present
around the shores of the Maritime Provinces,
including porpoise, dolphins, pilot whales, killer
whales, and some larger toothed and baleen
whales. A few of the larger species (e.g., North
Atlantic right whale [Eubalaena glacialis], northern
minke whale [Balaenoptera acutorostrata],
and humpback whale [Megaptera novaeangliae])
are sometimes close to shore. The harbor porpoise
Figure 1. The Maritime Provinces showing the locations of archaeological sites containing sea mammal remains and other
places referred to in the text. Numbers relate the site locations to the site names and Borden numbers listed in Table 1.
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
72
(Phocoena phocoena), the smallest and most
abundant cetacean in Maritimes waters, has been
identified occasionally in the archaeological record.
Porpoise are adapted to continental shelves,
ranging from Baffin Island to New Jersey. Adult
males rarely exceed 80 kg, and exhibit little sexual
dimorphism.
The only other whale species identified in a
Maritimes archaeological site is the sperm whale
(Physeter macrocephalus; Table 1), a deep-water,
toothed species. Male sperm whales migrate past
Atlantic Canada during the summer months, but are
sometimes present in the Gulf of Maine and Bay
of Fundy. Sperm whale strandings are reported occasionally
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (e.g., CBC
2005).
Distribution of sea mammal remains in the archaeological
record
Archaeological sea mammal remains are distributed
differently in each of the Maritime Provinces.
Their preservation and recovery has been conditioned
by variations in three primary factors: degree
of coastal erosion; preservation of shell-bearing
components; and intensity of archaeological investigation.
Spatial distribution. The coastal archaeological
record of the Maritime Provinces has everywhere
been truncated by inundation and erosion.
Only coastal components dating to the Maritime
Woodland period or later are likely to be preserved
above the high-water line. This effect is not spatially
uniform. In some areas—e.g., the upper Bay
Table 1. Locations where sea mammals have been documented in the Maritimes archaeological record. # = location number. See Figure 1
for locations. Phocid seal = unidentified Phocid seal remains.
Pinnipeds Cetaceans
Province/ Site Phocid Harbor Grey Harp Hooded Bearded Harbor Sperm
# site name id seal seal seal seal seal seal Walrus Whale porpoise whale References
Prince Edward Island
1 Savage Harbour CcCr-1 √ √ Erskine n.d.
2 Rustico Island CcCt-1 √ √ √ Leonard 1989
3 MacDonald Farm CcCm-12 √ ? ? √ Keenlyside
1982:93–94
4 Canavoy CcCq-1 √ √ √ Hodgetts 2002
-- Unknown -- √ √ √ √ Hodgetts 2002
Nova Scotia
5 Merigomish BjCo-1 √ √ √ Patterson 1889
Harbour BjCo-4 Smith 1973:95–104
BjCo-12
BjCo-13
BjCo-14
6 Indian Island BjCo-2 √ √ Deal 1998:73
7 Delorey Island BjCj-9 √ √ Stewart 1986
8 Waterside I & II BkCq-3 √ √ √ √ Deal 1998:83
9 Ben Francis CaCf-3 √ Stewart 1980
10 Reid BdCx-5 √ √ √ √ Deal 1998:73
Erskine 1961:27
11 Whynacht Cove BcDb-1 √ √ Deal 1998:73
Erskine 1961:27
12 Eisenhauer BcDc-4 √ √ Wintemberg
1973:113
13 Matthews Island AkDm-10 √ √ Deal 1998:73
14 Brighton BdDi-1 √ √ Deal 1998:51
15 Bear River BdDk-1 √ √ √ √ √ Deal 1998:51
Erskine 1960:352,
372
16 Port Joli sites AlDf-24 √ √ √ √ √ √ Betts 2011; Betts
AlDf-25 et al. 2017 (this
AlDf-30 volume); Deal
AlDf-31 1998:51, 58, 73;
AlDf-33 Erskine 1960:352
New Brunswick
17 Augustine Mound CfDl-2 √ √ √ √ Stewart 1989:71
18 Beausejour intertidal BlDb-10 √ MacKinnon 2003
19 Grand Harbour BeDq-11 √ √ Baird 1881:294
20 Quoddy Region See Table 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ See Table 3
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
73
of Fundy (because of tidal amplification), and
the low-gradient shorelines of the southern Gulf
of St. Lawrence (because of their susceptibility
to inundation and erosion)—only Late Maritime
Woodland and historic coastal components are routinely
preserved. In other areas—e.g., the Quoddy
Region (where shell-bearing sites are frequently
bedrock-pinned), and the South Shore of Nova Scotia
(where some shell-bearing sites are located short
distances from the modern shorelines)—earlier
Maritime Woodland components may be preserved.
Sites containing sea mammal remains are strongly
clustered in a few places, such as the Quoddy Region
in New Brunswick, Port Joli Harbour in Nova
Scotia, and the National Parks areas on the northern
shore of Prince Edward Island, where archaeological
projects focused on shell-bearing sites have
been conducted.
Temporal distribution. Stratigraphy, artifact associations,
and radiocarbon dates indicate that the
bulk of archaeological sea mammal remains have
been recovered from shell-bearing contexts dating
to the Maritime Woodland period. Two exceptions,
both from New Brunswick, should be noted. Two
sperm-whale teeth were identified in a mortuary/
ceremonial context at the Early Maritime Woodland
Augustine Mound site on the Metepenagiag
First Nation (Stewart 1989, Turnbull 1976), located
at the head-of-tide on the Miramichi River. The
presence of these teeth at the Augustine Mound is
probably more comparable to finds of shark teeth in
Maritime Woodland ceremonial contexts (e.g., Betts
et al. 2012) than to finds of sea mammal bones
in shell middens on habitation sites. Archaic sites
are sometimes preserved in intertidal or subtidal
contexts (e.g., Black 2000), but recovery of faunal
remains from such contexts is rare. Nevertheless, a
walrus-baculum artifact, recovered from an intertidal
context near Fort Beausejour, has been dated
to the Late Archaic period (MacKinnon 2003).
Species distribution. Four seal species have been
identified in Maritimes prehistoric archaeological
sites, with harbor seal the most commonly identified
(Table 1). Harbor and harp seals and walrus have
been identified from sites in all three provinces.
Given the modern distribution and adaptations of
walrus, it is not surprising that they have been more
frequently reported from Gulf of St. Lawrence sites
than from elsewhere in the Maritimes. Grey seals
have been identified only from sites in the Quoddy
Region and at Port Joli Harbour (Betts et al. 2017
[this volume]). Hooded seals have been identified
only from sites in the Quoddy Region (see also
Stewart 1989:70), well outside their modern range.
Porpoise have been identified occasionally at sites in
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as have the bones
of larger whales.
Ethnohistoric evidence for sea mammal
exploitation
During the late prehistoric and early historic
periods, the Maritime Provinces were populated by
the ancestors of three modern Native groups, the
Mi’kmaq (Micmac), the Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet),
and the Peskotomuhkatiyik (Passamaquoddy).
The traditional territories of the Mi’kmaq and the
Peskotomuhkatiyik include extensive, diverse,
and highly productive marine shorelines; not surprisingly,
their traditional subsistence activities
included marine fishing and sea mammal hunting
(Bock 1978, Erickson 1978, Snow 1980:50–51).
While the Wolastoqiyik probably were less involved
in marine-resource exploitation, as their traditional
territory includes relatively small extents of marine
shoreline, they did have access to warm-season
marine migrants into the Saint John estuary. Wolastoqiyik
also may have traded, with the linguistically
and culturally closely related Peskotomuhkatiyik, to
acquire marine resources (cf. Snow 1980:51).2
Few early European accounts refer specifically to
Native people hunting sea mammals. The most commonly
cited account is that of Biard (1959:79–83;
see also Bock 1978:110, Christianson 1976:41,
Davis 1991:105), which refers to January seal hunting
in southern Nova Scotia. Biard probably was
referring to people taking grey seals during their
breeding season (Black 2004:120, Spiess and Lewis
2001:119), although Stewart (1989:60) suggests Biard
may have been referring to the hunting of hooded
seals. Denys’s (1908:350; see also Spiess and Lewis
2001:118) account apparently refers to Mi’kmaq
hunting harbor seals in summer by approaching them
with canoes while the seals were hauled out. Wallis
and Wallis (1955:104; see also Bock 1978:112) recorded
a Mi’kmaw reference to hunting young seals
in May; this report may refer to taking young harbor
seals. The available archaeological data (Table 1)
are consistent with the ethnohistoric evidence that
seals were more commonly hunted than were walrus,
porpoise, or whales.
There are ethnohistoric and oral-history accounts
of people interacting with porpoise, killer
whales, and other whale species (e.g., Hornborg
2013, Spiess and Lewis 2001:119–120, Whitehead
1991:235–237), but there exists little historical or
archaeological evidence for systematic porpoise
hunting or whaling during the early historic period.
During the 19th century, Mi’kmaq and Peskotomuhkatiyik
became involved in porpoise hunting (Bock
1978:111; Erickson 1978:127; Soctomah 2002,
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
74
2005), an activity stimulated by the demand for sea
mammal oil as a lubricant and lamp oil (e.g., Haviland
2012:99). Historic porpoise-hunting strategies
relied on the use of guns (Haviland 2012:100) and
canoes equipped with sails (Adney and Chappelle
1964:65−67, 74−75); they probably were not direct
extensions of prehistoric hunting practices.
Evidence for ritual treatment of sea mammal
remains
Some archaeologists working in Maine have
presented arguments for ritual treatment and disposal
of sea mammal remains during the Maritime
Woodland period. These arguments are based
primarily on analogy with ethnohistoric accounts
of Eastern Algonquian practices with respect to
butchering and animal-bone disposal (summarized,
with references, by Sanger 2003:31−33, Ingraham
2011:19, Ingraham et al. 2016), and on association
of archaeological remains with other evidence for
ritual behaviours, such as rock art (Hedden 2004,
Ingraham 2011:20).
Sanger (2003:32) suggested that “porpoise may
constitute a case of deliberate exclusion from the
midden, assuming that hunting occurred in pre-
European times.” Given the small number of porpoise
bones identified in the archaeological record,
no compelling case can be made for prehistoric
porpoise hunting, and, thus, the assumption Sanger
refers to is not warranted. Nevertheless, Sanger
(2003:32) concluded that “if the reported historic
practice of butchering porpoises in the intertidal
zone can be extended to the pre-European record,
then the largely negative evidence may not constitute
absence of porpoise hunting.” As noted above,
it is unlikely that 19th-century aboriginal porpoise
hunting represents an extension of prehistoric hunting
practices. Sanger (2003) did, however, present
a compelling argument that aboriginal bone-processing
and disposal patterns differ between coastal
and interior sites in the Maine–Maritimes area, a
“cosmological asymmetry” that substantiates his
“two-population model” for regional prehistory.
Ingraham (2011:i–ii; see also Ingraham et al.
2016) argued that, at the Machias Bay sites in
Downeast Maine, USA (Fig. 1),3 seal remains were
subject to ritual treatment and disposal, and that
“skeletal remains of seals were likely deposited
in the sea, in accordance with a far-reaching and
ethnographically ubiquitous set of proscribed cultural
behaviours.” This interpretation is based on
“low numbers of post-cranial skeletal elements, in
conjunction with high numbers of temporal bulla
[sic]”, indicating deliberate retention of seal bullae,
and, in the case of grey seals, differential retention
favoring left-side bullae. Ingraham’s interpretation
is less based on negative evidence than Sanger’s.
However, many natural and cultural factors impinge
on bone preservation in shell-bearing sites, as
Ingraham (2011:83–94) acknowledged, and, until
the patterns he detected are confirmed more widely
in the Maine–Maritimes archaeological record,
“cosmological” explanations for sea mammal bone
distributions will remain weakly grounded.
Betts et al. (2012) have made a case for ritual
treatment of shark teeth recovered from some ceremonial/
mortuary contexts. However, no comparable
evidence for ritual treatment or disposal of
seal bones has been presented from the Maritimes
archaeological record. Thus, for the balance of this
paper, I consider sea mammals largely from the perspective
of inferring the cultural history of prehistoric
hunting practices and subsistence economies.
Subsistence practices
Few Maritimes archaeologists have commented
on the importance of sea mammals relative to other
prey species in subsistence practices of ancestral
Wabanaki. Stewart (1989:70) noted that seals (probably
harbor seals, in this case) were the second most
important vertebrate species (after moose) identified
in the Delorey Island assemblage, and Leonard
(1989) indicated that harp seals and walrus were the
most important prey species in the Rustico Island
assemblage (Fig. 1, Table 1). Since the Quoddy Region
is the only part of the Maritimes where remains
of all common seal species, walrus, porpoise, and
whale have been identified in archaeological sites
(Table 1), and where more detailed assessments of
the importance of sea mammal hunting have been
attempted (e.g., Black 2004), I focus the following
section on that region.
Sea Mammals in Quoddy Region Sites
Environment
The Quoddy Region (Fig. 1)—in effect, the
estuary of the St. Croix River and several smaller
rivers and streams—is a highly productive marine
and coastal system located at the confluence of the
Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine systems (Thomas
1983). It is a significant nursery and feeding area for
a variety of sea mammals (Table 2). Sea mammal
behavior is strongly seasonal, in response to fluctuations
in the biological productivity of prey species:
primary productivity peaks in the warm seasons.
Many vertebrate fish species that are prey for sea
mammals move inshore in the warm seasons, to take
advantage of this productivity, then move offshore in
the cold seasons (MacDonald et al. 1984, Scott and
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
75
Table 2. Natural history of sea mammals identified in Quoddy Regi on archaeological sites (compiled from Gaskin 1983, McAlpine 19 90, Naughton 2012, Squires 1968).
Current status in Breeding, pupping, & Vulnerability to littoral
Common name Species and distribution Quoddy region moulting seasons foragers in the region
Harbor seal Phoca vitulina (L.) - Arctic to North Common resident Pupping: mid-May–mid-June, on ledges; Most vulnerable in spring and summer when
Carolina breeding: July–September, in water hauled out; tend to be offshore in cold seasons
Grey seal Halichoerus grypus (Fabricius) - Greenland Local visitor from the Breeding and pupping: mid-December– Most vulnerable in mid-winter and spring when
and Labrador to New Jersy Grand Manan area; rare early February, moulting: March–May, hauled out for breeding and moulting
resident (formerly on rocky ledges and offshore islands
common)
Harp seal Phoca groenlandica (Erxleben) - eastern Migratory: rare visitor Breeding and pupping: February–April, Vulnerable in winter and spring (or not available)
Arctic to the Gulf of St. Lawrence; to the Bay of Fundy moulting: April–May, in large groups on
extralimital records to New Jersey pack ice
Hooded seal Cystophora cristata (Erxleben) - eastern Migratory: rare visitor Breeding, pupping and moulting: Vulnerable in winter and spring (or not available)
Arctic to the Gulf of St. Lawrence; to the Bay of Fundy mid-March–early May, offshore on pack ice
extralimital records to Florica
Walrus Odobenus rosmarus (L.) - central and Migratory: rare visitor Breeding and pupping: April–June on Vulnerable in warm seasons when hauled out
eastern Arctic (formerly south to to the Bay of Fundy ice-floes (or not available)
Massachusetts); extralimital records for the
Gulf of St. Lawrence and Bay of Fundy
Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena (L.) - southern Migratory: common Reproductive season: May–August Most vulnerable in warm seasons when inshore
Greenland and Labrador to New Jersey inshore during the in bays and channels
warm seasons
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
76
earlier Late Maritime Woodland components. The
Carson site (BgDr5) is predominantly earlier Late
Maritime Woodland in age. The McAleenan site
(BhDr1) dates to the later part of the Late Maritime
Woodland period. The Partridge Island (BgDr48)
and Weir (BgDq6) sites contain later Early, Middle,
and earlier Late Maritime Woodland components.
The Camp site (BgDq4) dates predominantly to
the earlier part of the Late Maritime Woodland, but
contains earlier and later prehistoric material, and a
substantial historic component (Black 2002, 2004).
Most of the sea mammal remains discussed here
date to the Middle and earlier Late Maritime Woodland
periods (ca. 2260 cal B.P. to ca. 930 cal B.P.).
Early Maritime Woodland components are predominantly
black soil deposits with scattered shell lenses
exhibiting variable to poor bone preservation. Middle
Maritime Woodland components contain extensive
dwelling features and substantial shell middens,
and, therefore, exhibit good to excellent bone preservation.
Earlier Late Maritime Woodland components
contain dwelling features and black soil middens,
sometimes associated with shell middens, exhibiting
variable to poor bone preservation. However, some
Early Maritime Woodland and earlier Late Maritime
Woodland black soil deposits with moderate shell
admixtures contain large and diverse faunal assemblages
(Black 2002). Hence, differential recovery
of sea mammal remains among components is not
simply a function of differential preservation. Later
Late Maritime Woodland components are similar in
structure to earlier Late Maritime Woodland components,
but are smaller, less frequently recognized,
and usually contain few vertebrate faunal remains
(Black 1991, 2002, 2004).
Pinniped remains
Species identification. Table 3 shows quantitative
data for sea mammals identified in Quoddy Region
sites. The identifications were made over a period
of several decades, by several faunal analysts, using
differing identification criteria and reporting
protocols. While more recent faunal analyses (e.g.,
Black 1993, McCormick 1980, Salvaggio 1983,
Stewart 1974) are detailed, some early reports
(e.g,, Churcher 1963, Savage n.d.) are brief lists of
identified species and skeletal elements. Therefore,
interpretations based on these data, and comparisons
among them, must be formulated cautiously.
Numbers of sea mammal remains recovered
(Table 3) are generally positively correlated with
volume of excavation. Phocid seals have been identified
at all 11 sites, and large sea mammal bones
at seven sites. Walrus were identified at two sites.4
Scott 1988). Seasonal movements of sea mammals
tend to parallel the movements of their principle
prey (Naughton 2012).
Harbor seals and grey seals, the only seal species
currently resident in and around the Quoddy Region,
may be present throughout the year. However,
harbor seals tend to be offshore in the cold seasons
and rarely haul out at that time of year. Only grey
seals are likely to be inshore and hauled out in cold
seasons, due to their mid-winter breeding and pupping
behavior (Table 2). Walrus were present in the
Quoddy Region, although probably in small numbers,
until the early 19th century (Lotze and Milewski
2002:88). Pinnipeds would have been most vulnerable
to predation by prehistoric hunters when hauled
out on the littoral. Cetaceans also typically migrate
into the Quoddy Region in the warm seasons and
out in the cold seasons (Gaskin 1983, Lotze and
Milewski 2002). These animals would have been
most vulnerable to predation by prehistoric hunters
when they were inshore.
Archaeological Record and Chronology
About 150 archaeological sites with prehistoric
components have been recorded in the Canadian
part of the Quoddy Region; about 10 of these sites
have been excavated at a substantial scale, and several
others have been tested at smaller scales (Black
2004, unpubl. data). Sea mammal bones have been
identified at 11 sites (Table 3): all of these are shellbearing;
most are multi-component. Four of the 11
sites are located in the insular Quoddy Region, the
other seven on the northern shores of Passamaquoddy
Bay.
The archaeological record of the Quoddy Region
is truncated by coastal erosion; artifacts dating earlier
than ca. 2500 cal B.P. are rarely found in situ in
land-based contexts immediately adjacent to highwater
lines. Thus, all of the sites referred to contain
material dating predominantly to the Maritime
Woodland and/or historic periods. The prehistoric
components represented are: (1) the later part of the
Early Maritime Woodland (2500–2260 cal B.P.),
(2) the Middle Maritime Woodland (2260–1300 cal
B.P.), (3) the earlier part of the Late Maritime Woodland
(1300–930 cal B.P.), and (4) the later part of the
Late Maritime Woodland (930–490 cal B.P.).
The Ministers Island site (BgDs10) contains
material dating throughout the Maritime Woodland
period. The Sandy Point site (BgDs6) is predominantly
Middle Maritime Woodland in age.
The Teachers Cove (BgDr11), Holts Point (BgDr9),
and Pagan Point sites (BgDs1) contain Middle and
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
77
and hooded seals (MNI = 4) together comprise ~25%
of the seal individuals identified in the archaeological
record of this region. I am skeptical about harp
seal identifications from Quoddy Region sites because
of historical asymmetries in species identification
(Black 2003), because few harp seals have been
identified in the archaeological record of adjacent
parts of the Maine coast (Spiess and Lewis 2001),
and because elsewhere in the Maritimes harp seals
have been identified only at sites on the Gulf of St.
Lawrence (Table 1).5
Spatial distribution. In terms of inter-site comparisons,
harp seal, hooded seal, and walrus have
been identified only from sites on the northern
shores of Passamaquoddy Bay. This distribution
almost certainly reflects, in part, the identification
issues referred to earlier. Thus, inter-site comparisons
based on the presence/absence of sea mammal
species are ambiguous.
There is no clear, consistent patterning to how
sea mammal bones are distributed within sites. Bonnichsen
and Sanger (1977) noted that seal remains at
the Ministers Island site are more common in shell
midden contexts than in dwelling features. This pattern
also appears to be the case at insular sites such
as Partridge Island and Weir. This distribution may
Altogether, 41 seal individuals (minimum number of
individuals [MNI] = 41; Table 3) have been identified:
19 harbor seals (46%), 11 grey seals (27%), 7
harp seals (17%) and 4 hooded seals (10%). Both
numbers of identified specimens (NISP) and MNI
are low. Even in sites where NISP values are higher
(e.g., Ministers Island, Weir), MNI values are low.
Thus, of the sea mammals identified from archaeological
sites in the Quoddy Region, only
harbor seal, grey seal, and harp seal remains are
present with sufficient frequency to warrant these
species being interpreted as routine contributors to
subsistence. Most of the elements identified as “phocid
seal” probably belong to these species. Some
cranial and dental elements of grey seals can be
distinguished readily from those of harp and harbor
seals. In the case of adults, grey seals may be distinguishable
from genus Phoca seals on the basis of
size. However, distinguishing post-cranial skeletal
elements of harp seals from those of harbor seals
is more problematic (cf. Amorosi 1992, Hodgetts
1999, Spiess and Lewis 2001:27).
As noted above, harbor and grey seals are currently
resident in the Quoddy Region and the Bay of
Fundy, while harp and hooded seals are present only
on rare occasions. Despite this, harp seals (MNI = 7)
Table 3. Identification and quantification of sea mammals in Quoddy Region archaeological sites. p = present (numerical data not reported).
Data presented for species indicate minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) per taxon per site, with numbers in parentheses indicating
number of identified specimens (NISP) per taxon per site. LSM = large sea mammal. Square brackets indicate tentative identifications.
Phocid seal = Phocid seal remains not identified to species.
Phocid Harbor Harp Grey Hooded Harbor
Site seal seal seal seal seal Walrus Whale porpoise LSM References
BgDq4 Camp p (4) 1 (3) 1 (1) p (1) 1 (1) (5) Black 2004:102–105,
Gruspier 1987
BgDq6 Weir p (179) 3 (13) 3 (34) p (3) (23) Black 2004:97–101,
Reading 1994
BgDr5 Carson p (3) 1 (3) 2 (2) (4) Sanger 1987:66,
Stewart 1974:10,
McCormick 1980:143−144
BgDr9 Holts Point p (12) 1 (2) 3 (5) 1 (1) Hammon 1984:31,
Salvaggio 1983
BgDr11 Teachers Cove p 1 (1) 2 (12) 1 (1) (6) Burns 1978:36,
McCormick 1980:143−144
BgDr48 Partridge Island p (6) 2 (11) 1 (4) (19) Bishop 1994:81,
Black 1993:82–83,
Bishop and Black 1988
BfDr3 Gooseberry Point p Stewart 2006
BgDs1 Pagan Point p 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (9) 1 (1) p Bishop 1994:81,
Churcher 1963,
Pearson 1970
BgDs6 Sandy Point 2 (17) 4 (22) 1 (4) 1 (5) [1] 5 p (6) Churcher 1963,
Pearson 1970,
Stewart 1974:48,
McCormick 1980:143−144
BgDs10 Ministers Island 7 (49) 6 + [1] 2 + [1] 2 + [1] [1] p (88) Bonnichsen and Sanger 1977,
(19) (8) (28) Churcher 1963,
Stewart 1974:48,
McCormick 1980:143−144
BhDr1 McAleenan p p Savage n.d.,
Stewart 1974:48
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
78
indicate that people preferred to keep seal remains
outside their houses. It also may be related to feeding
seal bones to domestic dogs. However, McCormick
(1980) showed that at some sites, such as Sandy
Point and Teachers Cove, sea mammal remains tend
to be associated with dwelling features.6 Moreover,
at Sandy Point, seal remains were associated only
with two of the four dwelling features designated.
Temporal distribution. Only three pieces of sea
mammal bone were recovered from the Partridge
Island Early Maritime Woodland component (Black
1993:82), and none from the peri-contemporaneous
component at the Weir site (Black 2004:98). Stratified
insular sites indicate that seal remains are more
common in sites with Middle Maritime Woodland
components than in sites occupied primarily during
the Late Maritime Woodland period (Black
2004:211). Further, grey seals are commonly associated
with Middle Maritime Woodland occupations,
while harbor seals are commonly associated
with Late Maritime Woodland occupations (Black
1993:85, 2004:211). Although less clear-cut, a similar
pattern appears to characterize sites on the north
shore of Passamaquoddy Bay.
Age distribution. Although relevant data are not
reported for all sites, it appears that harbor seals,
grey seals, and hooded seals all are represented by
both juvenile and adult individuals (e.g., Fig. 2;
see also Black 2004, Gruspier 1987, Reading 1994,
Salvaggio 1983, Stewart 1974). No fetal or newborn
seal remains have been reported, but this may reflect
differential preservation, canid destruction, lack of
recognition and/or reporting, or a combination of
these factors.
Macroscopic appearance and taphonomy. Many
harbor and grey seal individuals are represented
by both cranial/dental and post-cranial skeletal
elements (e.g., Black 2004; McCormick 1980),
suggesting that whole seal carcasses, or at least substantial
portions of them, were brought to habitation
sites, and were butchered and consumed on-site.
This practice would have been feasible for huntergatherers
equipped with canoes, whether they
hunted seals on ledges or in open water.
Post-cranial seal bones rarely bear
butchering marks (Black 2004, Reading
1994, Salvaggio 1983, Stewart 1974).
This finding may be because canid destruction
of the articular ends of extremity
bones (e.g., Fig. 2) has obscured such
evidence. Calcined or charred seal bones
are rarely encountered, which suggests
that people usually prepared seal meat
for consumption by boiling or stewing
it, rather than by roasting it. It also indicates
that prehistoric coastal inhabitants
did not use sea mammal bones as fuel,
nor did they routinely dispose of them in
fires.
Seal post-cranial bones often bear
evidence of having been chewed by
dogs (e.g., Fig. 2; see also Black 2000,
2004; Reading 1994). Spiess and Lewis
(2001:5, 69) report similar evidence from
the Turner Farm site on the central Maine
coast (Fig. 1). This finding suggests that
people either allowed domestic dogs to
scavenge seal remains on their habitation
sites, or deliberately fed seal bones (and
meat?) to their dogs.7
Seasonality. Season-of-death of
seals can be estimated by sectioning and
examining growth increments in wellpreserved
teeth (e.g., Hodgetts 2005,
Spiess and Lewis 2001:32–34). Nine
teeth from two sites, Partridge Island and
Figure 2. Examples of grey seal post-cranial bones recovered from the
Weir site. Clockwise from upper left: humerus, mandible, femur, and tibia.
(Photograph © C. Drew Gilbert.)
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
79
trial mammal and codfish (Gadidae) bones (Hrynick
and Black 2016:41–42). The vertebra appeared to
be resting on the surface of a midden dominated by
soft-shelled clams underlying the floor. A complete
expanding stemmed projectile point and the base of
a similar point indicate that this midden dates to the
Early–Middle Maritime Woodland transition (Black
2004:76–77). The whale vertebra almost certainly
was deliberately placed in the position where it was
found, but its cultural function is unclear.
A section of whale rib, consisting of two conjoining
pieces (Fig. 3), is associated with an earlier Late
Maritime Woodland period dwelling surface composed
of black soil, manuport gravel, and rock features
(Hrynick and Black 2016:43–44); fragments of
shell-tempered ceramics and a few pieces of lithic
debitage were recovered in association. The longer
piece of whale rib was lying horizontally in the black
soil of the feature; the shorter piece was embedded
vertically in a soft-shell clam and sea urchin midden
underlying the feature. The rib appears to have been
partially inserted vertically into the substrate and the
upper portion subsequently broken off. It may have
functioned as a stake associated with a structure
built on the dwelling surface. A series of deep, linear
gouges in the surface of the rib may be tool-marks
(Fig. 3).8
I doubt whale bones in the small numbers found
in Maritime Woodland shell-bearing sites represent
significant subsistence remains (cf. Sanger 1988:91;
but see Spiess and Lewis 2001:71–73). Rather, judging
from the contexts of whale remains, I suggest that
people occasionally scavenged whale bones from
shorelines and incorporated them into structures,
in the same ways that they used rocks from the intertidal
zones. Finds from elsewhere in the Maine–
Maritimes area reinforce this interpretation. A piece
Weir, have yielded seasonality information (Table
4). For Partridge Island, three teeth representing two
seals indicate one winter-harvested grey seal associated
with a Middle Maritime Woodland occupation,
and one spring/early summer-harvested harbor seal
associated with an earlier Late Maritime Woodland
occupation. At the Weir site, six teeth, representing
four seals, indicate two winter-harvested grey seals
and one spring-harvested grey seal associated with
Middle Maritime Woodland occupations, and one
spring/summer-harvested harbor seal associated
with an earlier Late Maritime Woodland occupation.
These data suggest that grey seals and harbor seals
were hunted during the periods when they are most
often hauled out, and, thus, most vulnerable to littoral
foragers: January−March for grey seals, and
spring–summer for harbor seals (Table 2). Spiess
and Lewis (2001:70–71) report similar results from
sectioning Turner Farm seal teeth.
Cetacean remains
Whale bones have been recovered in small quantities
at six sites in the Quoddy Region (Table 3). For
example, a single piece of whale bone (Fig. 3) was
recovered from a surface context at the Camp site.
This piece is calcined, was associated with historic
artifacts, and may have been deposited during a historic
occupation of the site. Identification of such
pieces of whale bone to more-specific taxonomic
units is hampered by their fragmentary condition
and by lack of appropriate comparative skeletons.
In contrast, the whale bones from the Weir site
are definitely prehistoric (Black 2004:100, 102), and
are from recognizable skeletal elements. A portion
of a whale cervical vertebra was found embedded
in a dwelling feature comprised mainly of manuport
gravel and black soil (Fig. 3) and containing terres-
Table 4. Seasonality of thin-sectioned seal teeth from the Weir and Partridge Island sites.
Provenance Specimen Species Tooth Age at death Season of death Depositional context
Partridge Island site BgDr48
U4, sc 2bA 245a Grey seal P3(R) 3 years January–March Clam shell midden
U4, sc 2c 94aB Harbor seal C1(?) Not interpretable May–July Disturbed shell deposit
U4, sc 2c 260aB Harbor seal I3(R) 5 years May–July Living floor feature
Weir site BgDq6
N6, sc 2C 2307D Grey seal P? 2–3 years January–March Clam and sea urchin midden
N6, sc 2 2308D Grey seal P? 2–3 years January–February Clam and sea urchin midden
N9, sc 2 1265D Grey seal P? 2 years January–February Clam shell midden
L5, sc 3 104 Grey seal Px(L) 3–4 years April–June Clam shell midden
M6, sc 3 732 Grey seal Px(L) 10 years + January–February Clam and horse mussel midden
L4, sc 4 40 Harbor seal C1(?) 2 years May–August Black soil midden
Asc = stratigraphic component (Black 1993:40–44).
BThese 2 teeth probably represent the same harbor seal individual.
Csc = stratigraphic component (Black 2004:24–32).
DThese 3 teeth probably represent the same grey seal individual.
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
80
single element―the left occipital condyle and foremen
magnum―was recovered from a near-surface
context associated with historic artifacts; it could
be associated with either Native or Euro-Canadian
hunting during the historic period.
The sites in Nova Scotia where porpoise bones
were identified (Table 1) also contain remains from
historic period occupations (e.g., Deal 1998, Erskine
1960). The Maine archaeological record has yielded
few porpoise bones, as Sanger (2003) acknowledged.
For example, a few vertebrae from a single porpoise
individual, recovered from a Maritime Woodland
context,9 were the only porpoise remains recovered
from the Turner Farm site (Spiess and Lewis 2001:71,
78). The Holmes Point West assemblage is particularly
instructive: in an assemblage of 464 sea mammal
bones identified to genus/species, a single bone was
identified as porpoise (Ingraham 2011:36).10
of whale bone that may represent a portion of a stake
was recovered from a Middle Maritime Woodland
feature at Port Joli Harbour (Matthew Betts, Canadian
Museum of History, Ottawa, ON, 2015 pers.
comm.). Moreover, both pieces of whale bone recovered
from the Turner Farm site apparently are artifacts:
one is a piece of rib associated with a dwelling
feature, the other a piece of rib or jaw; both exhibit
chopping marks beyond what would be warranted by
butchering (Spiess and Lewis 2001:71, 151).
There is no compelling archaeological evidence
that porpoise hunting was an important subsistence
practice in the Quoddy Region before European
contact, and little archaeological evidence for prehistoric
porpoise hunting elsewhere in the Maine–
Maritimes area. Harbor porpoise has been identified
from only one site in the Quoddy Region, the
Camp site on the Bliss Islands (Gruspier 1987). A
Figure 3. Whale bones recovered from the Bliss Islands sites: (a) posterior surface of whale cervical vertebra, (b) anterior
surface of whale cervical vertebra in situ in a Weir site Middle Maritime Woodland dwelling feature, (c) a section of whale
rib from a Weir site earlier Late Maritime Woodland dwelling surface, (d) detail showing possible tool-marks on the whale
rib, (e) calcined whale bone from the Camp site. (Photographs ©: C. Drew Gilbert, D.W. Black, and Archaeological Services
New Brunswick.)
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
81
Stable Isotopic Evidence of Sea Mammal
Exploitation
Stable isotopic ratios of carbon and nitrogen can
provide indirect evidence of the diets of past peoples
(e.g., Cannon et al. 1999, Hastorf and DeNiro 1985,
Schwarcz 1991). I have applied this technique to two
sets of data from sites in the insular Quoddy Region:
carbonized encrustations from ceramic sherds, and
the bones of domestic dogs (Black 2003).11
Carbonized encrustations from ceramic sherds.
Isotopic analyses of carbonized encrustations from
prehistoric ceramic vessels can indicate the types
of foods cooked in the vessels and supply information
about vessel use (Morton 1989, Morton and
Schwarcz 2004).
Table 5 and Figure 4 show stable carbon (δ13C)
and nitrogen (δ15N) isotopic values measured on
carbonized encrustations from Bliss Islands ceramics.
These measurements indicate that people cooked
a range of foods in their ceramic vessels, including
terrestrial animal meat and marine animal meat.
Values intermediate between these extremes may
indicate cooking of anadromous/marine fish and/or
birds, or may indicate that combinations of marine
and terrestrial animals were cooked. There is no
indication that terrestrial plants, marine plants, or
shellfish were cooked in the vessels.
The carbonized encrustation adhering to one
Middle Maritime Woodland sherd from the Weir
site (#1332; Table 5) yielded isotopic ratios falling
within the ranges for marine fish and marine mammals.
This sherd was recovered from a distinct coldseason
occupation (Black 2000:152–153) associated
with numerous grey seal bones (Fig. 2). Probably,
people cooked grey seal meat or rendered sea oil in
the ceramic vessel represented by this sherd.
Domestic dog remains. Stable isotopic analyses
of the bones of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) can
yield evidence of paleodiet analogous to that derived
from the bones of their human masters—the “canine
surrogacy approach” to studying human paleodiets
(Guiry 2012, 2013). This approach is particularly
important in areas like the Quoddy Region, where,
for ethical reasons, human remains are not subjected
to destructive analyses. Further, isotopic analyses of
dog remains can be used to validate temporal trends
Table 5. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic values of carbonized encrustations adhering to ceramic sherds from the Weir and Camp sites.
Ceramic type: G-t = grit-tempered, d-s = dentate-stamped, and c-w = cord-wrapped edge impressed.
Vertebrate faunal
Lab Specimen Provenance δ13C‰ δ15N‰ Ceramic type Depositional context associations
BgDq4 Camp siteA
McMaster 858 C2, layer 2 -15.39 -- G-t Gravel-based living floor Mammal, bird and fish
McMaster 1236 D4, layer 3 -24.78 -- G-t, d-s Black soil and marine shell Mammal
McMaster 1328 D5, layer 3 -19.93 12.92 G-t, d-s Black soil and marine shell Mammal and bird
McMaster 1436 E4, layer 3 -21.27 9.83 G-t Black soil midden Mammal and bird
McMaster 1559 SA3, layer 4 -23.43 12.04 G-t, d-s Black soil and marine shell Mammal, bird and fish
UNB 1559 SA3, layer 4 -24.83 10.38 G-t, d-s Black soil and marine shell Mammal, bird and fish
UNB 680 B4, layer 2 -26.25 8.34 G-t, c-w Black soil midden Mammal, bird and fish
UNB 1141 D2, layer 2 -24.24 10.14 G-t, d-s Black soil midden Mammal and bird
UNB 1912 surface -22.33 11.26 Organic (shell?)- Erosional face None
tempered
BgDq6 Weir siteB
McMaster 2381 N7, sc 2 -24.30 7.73 G-t Sea urchin shell midden Mammal and fish
UNB 2362 N7, sc 2 -22.34 7.37 G-t Gravel-based living floor Mammal and fish
McMaster 1332 M5, sc 3 -15.77 14.06 G-t, d-s Clam and horse mussel Grey seal
shell midden
McMaster 1521 N3, sc 3 -25.67 7.78 G-t, d-s Clam and sea urchin shell Mammal and bird
midden
McMaster 1792 N4, sc 3 -22.86 14.30 G-t, d-s Clam and sea urchin shell Mammal and fish
midden
McMaster 1833 N4, sc 3 -20.65 11.59 G-t Clam and sea urchin shell Mammal and bird
midden
McMaster 2672 J29W, sc 4 -24.20 3.69 G-t, c-w Black soil midden None
UNB 2671 J29W, sc 4 -24.81 3.47 G-t, c-w Black soil midden None
McMaster 2713 K30W, sc 4 -22.21 13.02 G-t, c-w Black soil midden None
UNB 2713 K30W, sc 4 -21.38 15.29 G-t, c-w Black soil midden None
UNB 2713 K30W, sc 4 -22.95 13.52 G-t, c-w Black soil midden None
UNB 2714 K30W, sc 4 -25.57 5.32 G-t, c-w Black soil midden None
UNB 2716 K30W, sc 4 -25.70 5.57 G-t, c-w Black soil midden None
ALayer = stratigraphic layer (Black 2004:32–37).
Bsc = stratigraphic component (Black 2004:24–32).
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
82
in subsistence suggested by faunal analyses (Cannon
et al. 1999).
Table 6 and Figure 5 present δ13C and δ15N values
for six domestic dogs from Bliss Islands sites.
These data indicate that dogs ate diets high in protein
derived from the marine ecosystem. In fact, the N
isotopic ratios for several of the dogs fall near the
values for marine carnivores, such as sea mammals
Figure 4. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic values for carbonized encrustations adhering to ceramic sherds recovered
from the Weir (BgDq6) and Camp (BgDq4) sites. Dashed rectangles indicate 1σ ranges of isotopic ratios for the plant and
animal groups indicated (data from LeBlanc 1985, Morton 1989). Linked data-points associate measurements taken from
the same ceramic vessel.
Table 6. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic values of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) bones from the Weir and Camp sites.
Provenance Specimen δ13C‰ δ15N‰ Description Depositional context
Camp site (BgDq4)
B2, layer 2A 562 -12.64 16.58 Mid-section, horizontal ramus of right Living floor
mandible with carnassial tooth
E1, layer 2 1281 -19.76 10.03 Left mandible with teeth Living floor
Weir site (BgDq6)
N9, sc 1B 1275 -16.47 12.71 Parietal and left temporal Black soil layer
N8, sc 3 1102 -11.79 17.22 Left mandible, horizontal ramus Clam and sea urchin midden
HH12N (north mound)C 83-157 -12.08 16.89 Left mandible and teeth, part of a Interface between clam and
near-complete dog skeleton sea urchin middens
M5, sc 4 969 -14.74 14.53 Complete right mandible Black soil midden
ALayer = stratigraphic layer (Black 2004:32–37).
Bsc = stratigraphic component (Black 2004:24–32).
CExcavated in 1983 (Black 1985:94).
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
83
sites on the north shore of Passamaquoddy Bay,
which indicate that deer are more common than seals
in most sites; Stewart (1974) noted that, at the Carson
site, seals are the second most important vertebrate
dietary item (by equivalent meat weight) after
deer. However, most of the faunal studies of sites on
Passamaquoddy Bay were essentially qualitative,
and most either ignored, or downplayed, the dietary
role of shellfish (cf. Stewart 1989:73).
My studies of Maritime Woodland period subsistence
at the Partridge Island site (Bishop and
Black 1988, Black 1993) and on the Bliss Islands
(Black 2004) produced a somewhat different view.
In the Bliss Islands study, I calculated trophic niche
widths12 for nine components in six sites (Black
2004:199). In this analysis, the higher the nichewidth
value calculated (to a maximum of 12), the
more generalized the subsistence orientation represented
by the component.
Niche widths for the nine components ranged
from 1.49 to 4.44, suggesting that subsistence prac-
(Fig. 5). These data indicate that Middle Maritime
Woodland dogs in the Quoddy Region—and, by
implication, their masters—consumed substantially
marine protein-based diets comparable to those
consumed by people and dogs living on the Northwest
Coast. In contrast, the Early and Late Maritime
Woodland dogs from Camp and Weir display stable
isotopic values closer to those of terrestrial carnivores,
suggesting less marine-protein contribution
to their diets.
Maritime Woodland Period Subsistence
Sanger (1987, 1988:90–91) characterized subsistence
practices in the Quoddy Region as reflecting a
generalized and stable adaptation to local environments
throughout the Maritime Woodland period:
“… despite the littoral setting, [his] impression is
one of terrestrial hunter-gatherers utilizing relatively
few marine resources” (Sanger 1987:84). In general,
his view is supported by faunal identifications from
Figure 5. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic values for domestic dog remains recovered from the Weir (BgDq6) and Camp
(BgDq4) sites. Dashed ovals indicate 1σ ranges of isotopic ratios for the trophic groups indicated (based on Schwarcz
1991:267).
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
84
Labrador, and on Quebec’s lower north shore, sea
mammal hunting began early in the Archaic period
(ca. 8000 cal B.P.; Spiess and Mosher 2006:400) and
persisted as a subsistence focus through the subsequent
prehistoric sequence. On the other side of the
Maritimes, the Maine archaeological record indicates
that sea mammals played, at most, a minor role
in Archaic period subsistence (Bourque 2012:103,
120, 137; Spiess and Lewis 2001:144; Spiess and
Mosher 2006:396). Thus, until relevant components
with faunal preservation are uncovered, Archaic sea
mammal hunting can be assumed in the Maritimes,
by analogy to the north, or denied, by analogy to the
south. Or, conversely, the Maritimes can be seen as
a boundary zone between two large-scale, divergent,
Archaic-period subsistence patterns.
Spiess and Lewis (2001:97−107, 147−159)
interpreted the Maine coastal sequence, where preserved
shell-bearing sites extend further into the
past than in the Maritimes, as indicating a slight increase
in sea mammal hunting during the Terminal
Archaic period, followed by a substantial increase
at the beginning of the Maritime Woodland period.
13 They see evidence for greater reliance on seals
through the Maritime Woodland, with open-water
hunting of seals by the Late Maritime Woodland
period, and year-round seal hunting by the time of
European contact. Further, they postulate warmseason
hunting of porpoise and whales during the
Late Maritime Woodland. Bourque (2012:104;
see also Spiess and Lewis 2001:162) related these
trends, on one hand, to environmental changes
increasing the diversity and productivity of sea
mammal resources, and, on the other, to increasing
human populations driving intensification of resource
extraction. The latter point, in particular, is
consistent with Bourque’s (2012:104) view of sea
mammals as a low-ranked resource that foragers
would resort to only under stress.
Maritime Woodland people in the Quoddy Region
practiced foraging adaptations focused on resources
accessible in and from the littoral zone, at times hunting
grey seals and harbor seals as part of their littoral
foraging subsistence strategies. Seasonality evidence
indicates that they hunted grey and harbor seals when
these species were at their most vulnerable—that
is, when hauled out on intertidal ledges during their
breeding, pupping, and moulting seasons: spring/
summer for harbor seals, and mid-winter and spring
for grey seals. In addition, the evidence indicates that
people brought seal carcasses to their habitation sites
for butchering, processing, and consumption.
These practices resulted in archaeological
sea mammal bone assemblages similar to those
tices were relatively specialized throughout the
Maritime Woodland period. Subsistence remains in
all components are dominated by marine resources,
especially by shellfish (which ranged as high as
90% of equivalent meat weights); marine contributions
to niche widths ranged from 48% to 86%.
There is some evidence for the broadening of niche
widths from the Middle to the earlier Late Maritime
Woodland components, reflecting somewhat
more emphasis on terrestrial resources in the latter.
Seals contributed to the niche-width measurements
of three components on the Bliss Islands; other
sea mammal bones were too infrequent to calculate
their contribution to equivalent meat weights
(Black 2004:109). For the later Middle Maritime
Woodland component at the Weir site, seals contributed
16.55% of the equivalent meat weight; for
the earlier Late Maritime Woodland components
at Weir and Camp, seals contributed 19.43% and
22.27%, respectively. Although faunal assemblages
from the Partridge Island site (Black 1993) were
quantified somewhat differently, similar patterns
of subsistence practices and changes through time
emerged from that study.
I conclude that the subsistence adaptation of
Maritime Woodland period people in the Quoddy
Region is described most realistically as a relatively
specialized littoral foraging strategy focusing on
shellfish, vertebrate fish, and harbor seals in the
warm seasons, and shellfish, cervids, and grey seals
during the cold seasons. People could acquire all
of the species routinely exploited for subsistence
(including deer, moose, and vertebrate fish) within,
or immediately adjacent to, the littoral zone. They
probably lived adjacent to the littoral throughout the
year. Differences in faunal assemblages between the
northern Passamaquoddy Bay and insular Quoddy
Region sites probably reflect differences in seasons
of occupation (Black 2002:213).
Sea Mammals in Maritimes Subsistence
Archaeological interpretation of prehistoric sea
mammal hunting in the Maritime Provinces is an odd
beast indeed, composed, at one end, of speculation,
in the midsection, of contradiction, and, at the other
end, of an uneasy amalgam of archaeological and
ethnohistoric evidence. There is no hard evidence
for sea mammal hunting during the Paleoindian period;
despite this, some (e.g., Keenlyside 1985, 2011)
have asserted that because sea mammals were present
around the Maritime Provinces during the Late
Pleistocene, early inhabitants must have exploited
them. North of the Maritimes, in Newfoundland,
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
85
Woodland transition (Black 2002, 2004; Hrynick
and Black 2016).
The paucity of evidence for Early Maritime
Woodland sea mammal hunting may reflect inadequate
sampling. However, the near-absence of
evidence for sea mammal hunting during the halfmillennium
immediately preceding European contact
is more difficult to dismiss. Later Late Maritime
Woodland components excavated by Sanger (1987)
on the north shore of Passamaquoddy Bay, by Black
(2004) in the insular Quoddy Region, and by Susan
Blair (Blair et al. 2017 [this volume]) in the Birch
Cove area, all have yielded few or no sea mammal
remains.14
While archaeologists may reasonably expect
commonalities in forager subsistence practices
within a culturally and biogeographically bounded
region such as the Maine–Maritimes area, they
should also be sensitive to the possibility of both
spatial and temporal micro-regional variations in
subsistence practices. The differences in sea mammal
hunting between the central coast of Maine and
the Quoddy Region, explored above, may constitute
one example of such variation. Given more detailed
examination and analysis, each of the clusters of
shell-bearing sites in the region (Fig. 1) may reveal
such variations. The challenge now is to conduct
these investigations before the remaining relevant
data are lost to the encroaching tides.
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was funded by the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
the University of New Brunswick, and Archaeological
Services New Brunswick, and was conducted with the
co-operation of McMaster University, the University of
Toronto, and the Royal Ontario Museum. Arthur Spiess
(Maine Historic Preservation Commission) sectioned and
interpreted seal teeth. Stable isotope measurements were
conducted by Henry Schwarcz and Martin Knyf (School of
Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University) and
by the Stable Isotopes in Nature Lab (Canadian Rivers Institute,
University of New Brunswick). Donald McAlpine
(Natural Sciences, New Brunswick Museum) assisted with
large mammal identifications. I thank Lisa Atkinson, Matt
Betts, Susan Blair, Katie Cottreau-Robins, Drew Gilbert,
Gabe Hrynick, Leah Rosenmeier, Jesse Webb, Cora Woolsey,
and two anonymous reviewers for their assistance
with various aspects of this study.
Literature Cited
Adney, E.T., and H.I. Chapelle. 1964. The Bark Canoes
and Skin Boats of North America. Museum of History
and Technology, Bulletin 230. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC, USA. 242 pp.
described by Spiess and Lewis (2001; see also
Spiess 2003) from Maine coastal sites. However,
my interpretations of Maritime Woodland period sea
mammal hunting in the Quoddy Region differ from
their interpretations of sea mammal hunting on the
Maine coast in several respects. I see little evidence
that hunting porpoise and whales were significant
subsistence practices; I see little evidence for a consistent
trajectory of intensification of sea mammal
exploitation through time; and I see no compelling
evidence for people practicing open-water sealing
during the Maritime Woodland period.
The near-absence of whale bones from Maritime
Woodland archaeological sites can be explained
through recourse to the improbability of people
bringing bone-bearing portions of whale carcasses
to their habitation sites for subsistence purposes.
However, no such argument can be mounted to account
for the near-absence of porpoise bones from
sites. Porpoise are smaller than most seals, and their
carcasses could have been brought to habitation sites
as readily as seals were. To me, the paucity of evidence
for prehistoric porpoise exploitation is powerful
circumstantial evidence that Maritime Woodland
people did not practice open-water sea mammal
hunting in the Quoddy Region.
Further, artifact assemblages indicate that Maritime
Woodland people did not manufacture specialized
equipment for hunting sea mammals in open water
(cf. Sanger 1987:118–122). They made relatively
small, unilaterally barbed or unbarbed harpoon points
(e.g., Black 2004:80, 89; Davis 1978:60). There is
no evidence that they used toggling harpoons, drags,
or floats. In this respect, the technology of Maritime
Woodland people contrasts with that of some of their
Archaic predecessors, who appear to have been deepwater
marine hunters (e.g., Bourque 1995, 2012;
papers in Sanger and Renouf 2006; Tuck 1976), and
with that of some of their northern contemporaries,
who were seal-hunting specialists focused primarily
on ice-adapted species (e.g., Renouf 1999; papers in
Charest and Plourde 2003).
Most evidence for sea mammal exploitation in
the Quoddy Region comes from Middle Maritime
Woodland and earlier Late Maritime Woodland components.
Moreover, grey seals are most often associated
with Middle Maritime Woodland components,
while earlier Late Maritime Woodland components
contain mainly genus Phoca bones. This temporal
pattern in the distribution of seal species suggests
that seal hunting peaked in the Quoddy Region during
these periods; it correlates with other evidence
for changes in settlement, seasonality, and subsistence
patterns during the Middle–Late Maritime
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
86
Amorosi, T. 1992. Non-metric trait distinctions for the
North Atlantic–Eastern Arctic Phocidae. Manuscript
on file, Bioarchaeological Laboratory, Department of
Anthropology. Hunter College, New York, NY, USA.
Baird, S.F. 1881. Notes on certain aboriginal shell mounds
on the coast of New Brunswick and New England.
Proceedings of the United States National Museum
4:292‒297.
Betts, M.W. 2011. E’se’get Archaeology Project, 2010
field season. Archaeology in Nova Scotia 2:8−17.
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(4):621−645.
Betts, M.W., M. Burchell, and B.R. Schöne. 2017. An
Economic History of the Maritime Woodland Period
in Port Joli Harbour, Nova Scotia. Journal of the North
Atlantic Special Issue 10:18–41.
Biard, P. 1959 [original, 1616]. Relation of New France of
its lands, nature of the country, and of its inhabitants.
Pp. 26–283, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit Relations
and Allied Documents. Vol. III, Acadia, 1611–
1616. Pageant Books, New York, NY, USA. 340 pp.
Bishop, J.C. 1994. The Partridge Island Site: Early and
Middle Woodland-Related Assemblages in Passamaquoddy
Bay. New Brunswick Archaeology, Number
28. Municipalities, Culture and Housing, Fredericton,
NB, Canada. 99 pp.
Bishop, J.C., and D.W. Black 1988. The lands edge also:
Culture history and seasonality at the Partridge Island
shell midden site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology
12:17–37.
Black, D.W. 1985. Living in Bliss: An Introduction to
the Archaeology of the Bliss Islands Group, Quoddy
Region, New Brunswick. New Brunswick Archaeology,
Number 8. Tourism, Recreation, and Heritage,
Fredericton, NB, Canada. 118 pp.
Black, D.W. 1991. Stratigraphic integrity in northeastern
shell middens: An example from the Insular Quoddy
Region. Pp. 205–219, In M. Deal and S.E. Blair (Eds.).
Prehistoric Archaeology in the Maritime Provinces:
Past and Present Research. Reports in Archaeology,
Number 8. Council of Maritime Premiers, Fredericton,
NB, Canada. 330 pp.
Black, D.W. 1993. What Images Return: A Study of the
Stratigraphy and Seasonality of a Shell Midden in the
Insular Quoddy Region, New Brunswick. New Brunswick
Archaeology, Number 27. Municipalities, Culture
and Housing, Fredericton, NB, Canada. 132 pp.
Black, D.W. 2000. Rum Beach and the Susquehanna
Tradition in the Quoddy Region, Charlotte County,
New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Archaeology
24:89–106.
Black, D.W. 2002. Out of the blue and into the black:
The Middle–Late Maritime Woodland Transition in
the Quoddy Region, New Brunswick, Canada. Pp.
301–320, In J.P. Hart and C.B. Rieth (Eds.). Northeast
Subsistence–Settlement Change: A.D. 700–1300. New
York State Museum, Bulletin 496. The University of
the State of New York/State Education Department,
Albany, NY, USA. 359 pp.
Black, D.W. 2003. L’importance du phoque dans l’alimentation
des populations silvicoles de la région
de Quoddy (Nouveau-Brunswick). Pp. 21–34, In P.
Charest et M. Plourde (Dir.). La Chasse au Phoque,
Une Activité Multimillénaire. Recherches amérindiennes
au Québec, Vol. XXXIII, Number 1. Montréal,
QC, Canada. 132 pp.
Black, D.W. 2004. Living Close to the Ledge: Prehistoric
Human Ecology of the Bliss Islands, Quoddy Region,
New Brunswick, Canada (2nd Edition). Occasional
Papers in Northeastern Archaeology, Number 6. Copetown
Press, St. John’s, Newfoundland, NL, Canada.
220 pp.
Black, D.W. 2016a. Phocid seal identifications. Available
online at http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/arts/departments/
anthropology/research/phocidsealidentifications.
pdf.
Black, D.W. 2016b. Stable isotope analyses. Available
online at http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/arts/departments/
anthropology/research/stableisotopesanalyses.
pdf.
Blair, S., M. Horne, A.K. Patton, and W.J. Webb. 2017.
Birch Cove and the Protohistoric period of the northern
Quoddy region, New Brunswick, Canada. Journal
of the North Atlantic Special Issue 10:59–69.
Bock, D.K. 1978. Micmac. Pp. 109–122, In B.G. Trigger
(Ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol.
15—Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
DC, USA. 924 pp.
Bonnichsen, R., and D. Sanger. 1977. Integrating faunal
analysis. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1:109–129.
Bourque, B.J. 1995. Diversity and Complexity in Prehistoric
Maritime Societies: A Gulf of Maine Perspective.
Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA. 414 pp.
Bourque, B.J. 2012. The Swordfish Hunters. Bunker Hill
Publications, Pierpont, NH, USA. 191 pp.
Burley, D.V. 1981. Protohistoric ecological effects of
the fur trade on Micmac Culture in northeastern New
Brunswick. Ethnohistory 28(3):203–216.
Burns, J. 1978. The faunal analysis of Teachers Cove. Pp.
36–39, In S.A. Davis (Ed.). Teachers Cove: A Prehistoric
Site on Passamaquoddy Bay. New Brunswick.
New Brunswick Archaeology Series 1, Number 1.
Historical Resources Administration, Fredericton, NB,
Canada. 64 pp.
Byers, D.S. 1979. The Nevin Shellheap: Burials and Observations.
Papers of the R.S. Peabody Foundation for
Archaeology, Vol. 9. Phillips Academy, Andover, MA,
USA. 74 pp.
Cannon, A., H.P. Schwarcz, and M. Knyf. 1999. Marinebased
subsistence trends and stable isotope analysis of
dog bones from Namu, British Columbia. Journal of
Archaeological Science 26:399–407.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). 2005.
One whale of a problem. Available online at http://
pei.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=pe_
whale_20050426. Accessed 26 April 2005.
Charest, P., and M. Plourde (Eds.) 2003. La Chasse au
Phoque, Une Activité Multimillénaire. Recherches
amérindiennes au Québec, Vol. XXXIII, Number 1.
Montréal, QC, Canada. 132 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
87
Christianson, D.J. 1976. The use of subsistence-strategy
descriptions in determining Wabanaki residence
location. The Journal of Anthropology at McMaster
5(1):81–124.
Churcher, C.S. 1963. Analysis of the mammal bones from
three shell mounds near St. Andrews, New Brunswick.
Manuscript on file, Archaeological Survey of Canada.
Canadian Museum of History, Gatineau, QC, Canada.
Davis, S.A. 1978. Teachers Cove: A Prehistoric Site on
Passamaquoddy Bay. New Brunswick. New Brunswick
Archaeology Series 1, Number 1. Historical
Resources Administration, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
64 pp.
Davis, S.A. 1991. The Ceramic Period of Nova Scotia.
Pp. 93–108, In M. Deal and S.E. Blair (Eds.). Prehistoric
Archaeology in the Maritime Provinces: Past and
Present Research. Reports in Archaeology, Number
8. Council of Maritime Premiers, Fredericton, NB,
Canada. 330 pp.
Deal, M. (Ed.). 1998. Memoirs of the prehistory of Nova
Scotia, 1957–1967, by J.S. Erskine. Special Report.
Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS, Canada. 85 pp.
Denys, N. 1908 [original, 1672]. The Description and
Natural History of the Coasts of North America (Acadia),
W.F. Ganong (Trans. and Ed.). The Champlain
Society, Toronto, ON, Canada. 625 pp.
Erickson, V.O. 1978. Maliseet–Passamaquoddy. Pp.
123–136, In B.G. Trigger (Ed.). Handbook of North
American Indians. Vol. 15—Northeast. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC, USA. 924 pp.
Erskine, J.S. n.d. Food relics in site, Savage Harbour,
Prince Edward Island. Manuscript on file, Department
of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland,
St. John’s, NL, Canada.
Erskine, J.S. 1960. Shell-heap archaeology of southwestern
Nova Scotia. Proceedings of the Nova Scotia
Institute of Science 24(4):339–375.
Erskine, J.S. 1961. Micmac notes 1960. Archaeological
Series, Number 1. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS,
Canada. 38 pp.
Gaskin, D.E. 1983. The marine mammal community.
Pp. 245–268, In M.L.H. Thomas (Ed.). Marine and
Coastal Systems of the Quoddy Region, New Brunswick.
Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, Number 64. Fisheries and Oceans,
Ottawa, ON, Canada. 306 pp.
Gosselin, J., and F. Boily 1994. Unusual southern occurrence
of a juvenile bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus,
in the St. Lawrence estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal
Science 10:480–483.
Gruspier, K. 1987. The faunal remains from the Camp Site
(BgDq4), Bliss Islands, New Brunswick. Manuscript
on file, Faunal Osteo-archaeology Lab, Department
of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
Guiry, E.J. 2012. Dogs as analogs in stable isotope-based
human paleodietary reconstructions: A review and
considerations for future use. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 19:351–376.
Guiry, E.J. 2013. A canine-surrogacy approach to human
paleodietary bone chemistry: Past development and
future directions. Archaeological and Anthropological
Sciences 5:275–286.
Hammon, D.J. 1984. A Ceramic Period coastal adaptation
at Holts Point, New Brunswick. M.A. Thesis. University
of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
458 pp.
Hastorf, C.A., and M.J. DeNiro 1985. Reconstruction of
prehistoric plant production and cooking practices by
a new isotopic method. Nature 315:489–491.
Haviland, W.A. 2012. Canoe Indians of Down East Maine.
The History Press, Charleston, ME, USA. 128 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. 426 pp.
Hoffman, B.J. 1955. Historical ethnography of the Micmac
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA,
USA. 1676 pp.
Hodgetts, L.M. 1999. Appendix B: A manual for the identification
of the post-cranial skeleton of North Atlantic
phocid seals. Pp. 296–377, In Animal bones and human
society in the late Younger Stone Age of Norway.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Durham University, Durham, UK.
377 pp.
Hodgetts, L.M. 2002. Faunal remains from CcCq1 and
unknown provenience, Prince Edward Island. Manuscript
on file, Department of Archaeology, Memorial
University, St. John’s, NL, Canada.
Hodgetts, L.M. 2005. Using bone measurements to determine
the season of harp seal hunting at the Dorset
Palaeoeskimo site of Phillip’s Garden. Newfoundland
and Labrador Studies 20(1):91–106.
Hornborg, A.C. 2013. Mi’kmaq Landscapes: From Animism
to Sacred Ecology. Ashgate Publishing, Burlington,
VT, USA. 205 pp.
Hrynick, M.G., and D.W. Black 2016. Cultural continuity
in Maritime Woodland period domestic architecture in
the Quoddy Region. Canadian Journal of Archaeology
40(1):23–67.
Hrynick, M.G., W.J. Webb, D.E. Leslie, T. Testa, J.A.
Fable, and W.A. Farley. 2015. 2014 archaeological
investigations at the Devil’s Head Site (97.10),
Washington County, Maine. Manuscript on file, Maine
Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, ME,
USA. 104 pp.
Ingraham, R.C. 2011. Specialized taphonomies in an
eastern Maine midden: faunal analysis of site 62-8,
Holmes Point West, Machias, Maine. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 149 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. The
Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 11:89–106.
Keenlyside, D.L. 1982. Prince Edward Island archaeological
research 1980. Pp. 62–99, In C.J. Turnbull (Ed.).
Archaeological Research in the Maritimes 1980. Reports
in Archaeology, Number 5. Council of Maritime
Premiers, Fredericton, Canada. 99 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
88
Keenlyside, D.L. 1985. Late Palaeo-Indian evidence from
the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 13:79−92.
Keenlyside, D.L. 2011. Observations on Debert and the
Late Palaeo/Early Archaic transition. Pp. 145−156, In
T. Bernard, L.M. Rosenmeier, and S.L. Farrell (Eds.).
Ta’n Wetapeksi’k: Understanding From Where We
Come. Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq, Truro, NS,
Canada. 232 pp.
LeBlanc, C. 1985. Terrestrial inputs to estuarine bivalves
as measured by multiple stable isotopes traces. Ph.D.
Dissertation. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON,
Canada. 200 pp.
Leonard, K.J.M. 1989. Faunal analysis of the Rustico
Island shell midden (CcCt1), Prince Edward Island,
Canada. Manuscript on file, Atlantic Regional Office,
Canadian Parks Service, Halifax, Nova Scotia, NS,
Canada.
Lotze, H., and I. Milewski. 2002. Two Hundred Years of
Ecosystem and Food-Web Changes in the Quoddy
Region, Outer Bay of Fundy. Conservation Council
of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada. 188 pp.
MacDonald, J.S., M.J. Dadswell, R.G. Appy, G.D. Melvin,
and D.A. Methven. 1984. Fishes, fish assemblages,
and their seasonal movements in the lower Bay
of Fundy and Passamaquoddy Bay, Canada. Fisheries
Bulletin 82(1):121–139.
MacKinnon, C. 2003. The Beausejour plummets. The
White Fence, Number 22. Available online at http://
heritage.tantramar.com/WFNewsletter_22.html. Accessed
12 Nov. 2012.
McAlpine, D.F. 1990. Extralimital records of the harp seal,
Phoca groenlandica, from the western North Atlantic:
A review. Marine Mammal Science 6(3):248–252.
McCormick, J.S. 1980. Criteria in archaeological faunal
analysis: Four Passamaquoddy Bay sites. M.S. Thesis.
University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 149 pp.
Miller, R. 1990. New records of post-glacial walrus and a
review of quaternary marine mammals in New Brunswick.
Atlantic Geology 26:97–107.
Morton, J.D. 1989. An investigation of the use of stable
isotopic analysis of encrustations on prehistoric
Ontario ceramic sherds: Paleodietary possibilities.
M.Sc. Thesis. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON,
Canada. 206 pp.
Morton, J.D., and H.P. Schwarcz. 2004. Paleodiet implications
from stable isotopic analyses of residues on prehistoric
Ontario ceramics. Journal of Archaeological
Science 31:503–517.
Nash, R.J., and V. Miller 1987. Model building and the
case of the Micmac economy. Man in the Northeast
34:41–56.
Naughton, D. 2012. The Natural History of Canadian
Mammals. Canadian Museum of Nature and University
of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, Canada. 784 pp.
Patterson, G. 1889. The Stone Age in Nova Scotia, as illustrated
by a collection of relics presented to Dalhousie
College. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute
of Science 7(3):231–252.
Pearson, R. 1970. Archaeological investigations in the
St. Andrews area, New Brunswick. Anthropologica
8:181–190.
Reading, J.E. 1994. The faunal remains from the Weir
site (BgDq6)—1993 excavations, Bliss Islands, New
Brunswick. Manuscript on file, Faunal Osteo-archaeology
Lab, Department of Anthropology, University of
Toronto, ON, Canada.
Renouf, M.A.P. 1999. Ancient Cultures, Bountiful Seas.
Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador,
St. John’s, NL, Canada. pp.
Salvaggio, R. 1983. Faunal analysis of the Holts Point site
(BgDr9). Manuscript on file, Archaeological Services
New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
Sanger, D. 1987. The Carson Site and the Late Ceramic
Period in Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick. Mercury
Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper
Number 135. Canadian Museum of History, Ottawa,
ON, Canada. 157 pp.
Sanger, D. 1988. Maritime adaptations in the Gulf of
Maine. Archaeology of Eastern North America
16:81–100.
Sanger, D. 2003. Who lived in pre-European Maine? A
cosmological approach to social patterning on the
landscape. Northeast Anthropology 66:29–39.
Sanger, D., and M.A.P. Renouf (Eds.). 2006. The Archaic
of the Far Northeast. University of Maine Press, Orono,
ME, USA. 472 pp.
Savage, H.G. n.d. Faunal identifications from Passamaquoddy
Bay sites. Archaeological Survey of Canada,
Manuscript 978. Canadian Museum of History, Gatineau,
QC, Canada.
Schwarcz, H.P. 1991. Some theoretical aspects of isotopic
paleodiet studies. Journal of Archaeological Science
18:261–271.
Scott, W.B., and M.G. Scott 1988. Atlantic Fishes of
Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, Number 219. University of Toronto Press,
Toronto, ON, Canada. 731 pp.
Smith, H.I. 1973 [original, 1929]. The archaeology of
Merigomish Harbour, Nova Scotia. Pp. 1–104, In H.I.
Smith and W.J. Wintemberg (Eds.). Some Shell-heaps
in Nova Scotia. Bulletin Number 47. National Museum
of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 192 pp.
Snow, D.R. 1980. The Archaeology of New England. Academic
Press, New York, NY, USA. 379 pp.
Soctomah, D. 2002. Passamaquoddy at the Turn of the
Century, 1890−1920. Passamaquoddy Tribe, Pleasant
Point, ME, USA. 177 pp.
Soctomah, D. 2005. Let Me Live as My Ancestors Had,
1850−1890. Passamaquoddy Tribe, Pleasant Point,
ME, USA. 221 pp.
Spiess, A.E. 2003. Phoque et morses dans la préhistoire
du littoral du golfe du Maine. Pp. 11–20, In P. Charest
and M. Plourde (Eds.). La Chasse au Phoque, Une
Activité Multimillénaire. Recherches amérindiennes
au Québec, Vol. XXXIII, Number 1. Montréal, QC,
Canada. 132 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, Number 11. Maine State Museum and
Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta,
ME, USA. 177 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
D.W. Black
2017 Special Volume 10
89
Spiess, A.E., and J. Mosher 2006. Archaic Period hunting
and fishing around the Gulf of Maine. Pp. 383–408, In
D. Sanger and M.A.P. Renouf (Eds.). The Archaic of
the Far Northeast. University of Maine Press, Orono,
ME, USA. 472 pp.
Squires, W.A. 1968. The Mammals of New Brunswick.
Monograph Series, Number 5. New Brunswick Museum,
Saint John, New Brunswick, NB, Canada. 57 pp.
Stewart, F.L. 1974. Faunal remains from the Carson site
(BgDr5) of New Brunswick. Archaeological Survey of
Canada, Manuscript 1012. Canadian Museum of History,
Gatineau, QC, Canada.
Stewart, F.L. 1980. Faunal remains from four Cape
Breton Island, Nova Scotia, archaeological sites. Pp.
147–163, In D.M. Shimabuku (Ed.). Proceedings of
the 1980 Conference on the Future of Archaeology in
the Maritime Provinces. Occasional Papers in Anthropology,
Number 8. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax,
NS, Canada. 192 pp.
Stewart, F.L. 1986. Faunal remains from the Delorey Island
site (BjCj9) of Nova Scotia. Pp. 105–151, In R.J.
Nash. Mi’kmaq: Economics and Evolution. Curatorial
Report, Number 57. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax,
NS, Canada. 178 pp.
Stewart, F.L. 1989. Seasonal movements of Indians in
Acadia as evidenced by historical documents and vertebrate
faunal remains from archaeological sites. Man
in the Northeast 38:55–77.
Stewart, F.L. 2006. Zooarchaeological remains from the
BfDr3 site excavated in 2005 in New Brunswick.
Manuscript on file, Archaeological Services, Wellness,
Culture, and Sport, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
Thomas, M.L.H. (Ed.). 1983. Marine and Coastal Systems
of the Quoddy Region, New Brunswick. Canadian
Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
Number 64. Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, ON,
Canada. 306 pp.
Tuck, J.A. 1976. Ancient People of Port Au Choix. Newfoundland
Social and Economic Studies, Number 17.
Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada. 261 pp.
Turnbull, C.J. 1976. The Augustine site: A mound from
the Maritimes. Archaeology of Eastern North America
4:50–62.
Wallis, W.D., and R.S. Wallis. 1955. The Micmac Indians
of Eastern Canada. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN, USA. 515 pp.
Whitehead, R.H. 1991. The Protohistoric Period in the
Maritime Provinces. Pp. 235–266, In M. Deal and S.E.
Blair (Eds.). Prehistoric Archaeology in the Maritime
Provinces: Past and Present Research. Reports in Archaeology,
Number 8. Council of Maritime Premiers,
Fredericton, NB, Canada. 330 pp.
Wintemberg, W.J. 1973 [original, 1929]. The Eisenhower
shell-heap, Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia. Pp. 107–193, In
H.I. Smith and W.J. Wintemberg. Some Shell-heaps in
Nova Scotia. Bulletin Number 47. National Museum
of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 192 pp.
End Notes
1Calibrated radiocarbon ages were calculated using the
program CALIB 6.1.
2Seal oil may have been more valued than seal meat because
of its wide range of subsistence, medicinal, and
cosmetic uses (e.g., Haviland 2012:55, 61; Spiess and
Lewis 2001:118).
3Machias Bay is separated from the Quoddy Region by the
Bold Coast, a stretch of rugged and difficult to navigate
shoreline (Fig. 1).
4In addition, at least one walrus bone has been recovered
from a site on the American side of the Quoddy Region
(Spiess and Lewis 2001:30).
5For additional information about Quoddy Region seal
identifications, see Black (2016a).
6“Housepits” in McCormick’s (1980) terminology.
7Bourque (2012:104) has speculated that Late Archaic
(“Moorehead Phase” in Bourque’s [1995] terminology)
people hunted seals only to feed their dogs.
8Parenthetically, whale bones were not the only large
bones used in this way at the Weir site. In an excavation
unit immediately adjacent to the one where the whale rib
was found, a large portion of a moose cranium was included
as a structural element in an earlier Late Maritime
Woodland feature, alongside several similarly sized rocks
(Hrynick and Black 2016:44).
9“Occupation 4” in Bourque’s (1995) terminology.
10Byers (1979:40–42; see also Bourque 2012:117) tentatively
identified a portion of a juvenile harbor porpoise
skeleton associated with a Late Archaic mortuary feature
at the Nevin site on the central Maine coast (Fig. 1).
11For additional information on the application of stable
isotope analyses to paleodiets in Wabanaki traditional
territory, see Black (2016b).
12Here, trophic niche width refers to a measure of the
range and relative contributions of feeding strategies
in portions of the realized ecological niches of human
populations represented by preserved and identified
zooarchaeological food remains.
13“Ceramic Period”, in Spiess and Lewis’ (2001) terminology.
14Betts et al. 2017 (this volume) report similar patterning
from Port Joli Harbour. Hrynick et al. (2015) report a
single phocid seal element from later Late Maritime
Woodland features and middens at Devil’s Head, on the
American site of the Quoddy Region.