Eagle Hill Masthead



Journal of the North Altantic
    JONA Home
    Aim and Scope
    Board of Editors
    Staff
    Editorial Workflow
    Publication Charges
    Subscriptions

Other Eagle Hill Journals
    Northeastern Naturalist
    Southeastern Naturalist
    Caribbean Naturalist
    Neotropical Naturalist
    Urban Naturalist
    Prairie Naturalist
    Eastern Paleontologist
    Journal of North American
        Bat Research
    eBio

Eagle Hill Institute Home

About Journal of the North Atlantic

Archaeological Sea Mammal Remains from the Maritime Provinces of Canada
David W. Black

Journal of the North Atlantic, Special Volume 10 (2017): 70–89

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)

 

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.