Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
126
Introduction
Documenting a marine adaptation involves more
than just the presence of sites on the coast (Sanger
1975, 1981, 1988). In our view, demonstration can
only come about by an analysis of food remains
in site contexts, not just potential. Secondly, the
archaeology should demonstrate a clear orientation
to the marine resources, and ascertain whether the
focus is seasonal or extends over much of the year.
This analysis may be especially important in temperate
zones where resources exhibit considerable
seasonal variability.
Archaeological sites that feature many discarded
shellfish remains, usually called “shell middens”,
provide the necessary documentation due to the
superior preservation of food remains. Shell middens
occur throughout the world in varying degrees
of concentration and size. Archaeologists have long
recognized the potential of these sites to reveal much
about the culture of the shell gatherers; however, as
a class of sites, shell middens represent a paradox.
On the one hand, these middens afford excellent
bone, antler, and tooth preservation due to the nearly
neutral environment (pH of ~7.0) from the carbonates
leached from the shells through pedogenesis;
on the other hand, Maine, USA, sites can exhibit
very detailed and complex stratigraphies (Sanger
1981, 1985). These challenges, combined with other
research interests, dictated our analytical approach
to the Roque Island sites.
This paper will serve as a historical review that
clearly lays out the methodology that was developed
by Sanger and implemented by his graduate students
in terms of thesis research as well as project implementation
during the early 1980s to mid-1990s. The
classification of the stratigraphic sequences through
quantitative analysis and qualitative/semi-quantitative
descriptions were intended to recognize the
diversity that we observed in shell middens, rather
than describing them as relatively homogenous or
palimpsest deposits that could yield little in terms of
our understanding of maritime adaptations throughout
the larger Gulf of Maine region. Additionally,
the Great Spruce Island (GSI) site (site 61-17 in the
Maine site-designation system), the main focus of
the Roque Island Archaeological Project, is used as
a case study to demonstrate the use of this analytical
system.
Shell middens represent a unique component
of the archaeological record of Maine and have a
long history of investigation (Bourque 1971, 1975;
Moorehead 1922; Sanger 1971, 1979a, 1987). While
shell midden deposits may extend back to the Late
Archaic Period (ca. 5500 to 4500 years ago), the focus
of much of the research is on shell middens that
fall within the Ceramic Period as defined by Petersen
and Sanger (1991). The Ceramic Period is analogous
to the Maritime Woodland Period (e.g., Hrynick and
Black 2016). Petersen and Sanger (1991) subdivided
the Ceramic Period into 7 sub-periods (CP 1 to CP 7)
based on ceramic-surface treatment that temporally
ranges from ca. 3000 to 400 years ago. Much of
the research on Ceramic Period shell middens has
focused on subsistence and settlement (e.g., Sanger
1981, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1996).
Stratigraphic Analysis
Discussions of archaeological stratigraphy
cite basic principles worked out by geologists or
The Roque Island Archaeological Project, Maine, USA:
Methodologies and Results
William R. Belcher1,* and David Sanger2
Abstract - Between the early 1970s and to the mid-1990s, David Sanger was largely responsible for a series of large-scale
regional survey and excavation projects throughout Passamaquoddy Bay (New Brunswick) and the central/Downeast
coasts of Maine. While resulting in an important understanding of the paleoenvironment and prehistoric/historic resource
exploitation along the Gulf of Maine, these projects also allowed the development of a unified analytical strategy for the
excavation of shell middens using column sampling, documentation, and excavation protocols, as well as sediment analysis
and classification. This strategy is detailed below along with a summary of excavations from the Great Spruce Island site
(61-17) in the Roque Island Archipelago, Downeast region, ME, USA. Pre-European occupation at this specific site ranges
from before 3000 years B.P. to ca. 400 years B.P.
North American East Coast Shell Midden Research
Journal of the North Atlantic
1Assistant Professor, Division of Social Sciences, University of Hawai’i-West O’ahu, Kapolei, HI 96707, USA. 2Professor
Emeritus, Department of Anthropology, South Stevens Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA. *Corresponding
author - belcher@hawaii.edu.
2017 Special Volume 10:126–142
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
127
geoarchaeologists for non-cultural deposits (Holliday
1990; Stein 1990, 1992). Fundamental to our
research is the axiom that shell middens represent
cultural activities; in other words, people make
shell middens. As such, we regard direct analogies
with geological process as inappropriate. However,
even as a site is forming, geological, biological,
and cultural processes impact both the site and the
nature of the archaeological record, with natural and
cultural processes that continue after abandonment
to the present (e.g., Schiffer 2010). These concerns
are reflected in our interest in reconstructing paleoenvironments
and in placing archaeological sites in
specific cultural and natural settings.
Shell middens are composed of repeated deposits
of shells and other debris that could not have accumulated
as homogeneous layers over the entire
site. The individual deposits into the shell midden
consist of dumping areas, or debris piles, whose size
and duration of use is determined by the site’s inhabitants,
not natural processes. Feature 3 at the GSI
site, discussed below, is a rare example of an intact
shell pile. Repetitive dumping episodes of coarse
shell debris from the same species can be difficult to
identify, resulting in deposits that may appear massive
or relatively undifferentiated to the naked eye.
On other occasions, at the same site, there may be a
myriad of visually distinguishable lenses of shells
and other deposits, all varying in thickness, length,
and orientation to each other. The size of these
particles is not determined by natural depositional
agencies, such as water or wind. In this respect, traditional
sedimentology techniques appropriate for
analysis of natural deposits have marginal utility.
The different characteristics of house pits and other
features, as opposed to shell dump areas, highlight
this phenomenon.
Abandonment of a site can result in a mature or
formative soil horizon that people again lived on following
a hiatus. Under these conditions a near sitewide
stratigraphic layer can develop. Such breaks, albeit
all too rare, constitute very useful time markers.
In the 1990s, D.F. Dincauze (1996) proposed
using the Harris Matrix system (Harris 1989) to deconstruct
the archaeology of Northeast coastal shell
middens. While the senior author has used the Harris
Matrix system for prehistoric urban archaeology, the
Harris Matrix technique was not developed for use
with shell middens and generally does not impress
us with its utility in extremely complex middens;
however, the system has been used in research of
northern New England and the Maritime Provinces
(Black 1983, 1992). As in any method, the analyst
still has to make decisions as to the significance
of divisions in the midden. For instance, when
the deposit changes from nearly all clam shell to
mussel, the choice is easy. But when faced with an
ephemeral transition, as is often the case with shell
middens, where is the division made? Or does the
archaeologist assume that “shell is shell”, no matter
what the species, size, or percentage relative to nonshell
(mineral) deposit? Bourque (1996) and R.L.
Carlson (1993) presented a thoughtful and critical
review of the utility of the Harris Matrix system and
Stein’s (1992) geological facies perspective applied
to shell middens.
Shell Midden Excavation
Research interests and theoretical orientation
dictate an archaeologist’s site choice for excavation
as well as excavation procedures. We recognize it
is highly unlikely that there is a single “best way”
to excavate a shell midden, especially when one
considers the myriad of definitions of a shell midden.
We feel the appropriate technique for a specific
problem can only come from a full understanding of
the depositional agencies involved, not a dogmatic
protocol. Research questions also determine excavation
strategies. Sanger and his students developed
and used a system of analyses that included facies
analysis, written qualitative/quantitative descriptions,
whole-unit analysis, and column sampling
protocol (Belcher 1988, Carlson 1986, Chase 1988,
Skinas 1987). This system of excavation and documentation
allowed detailed and controlled analysis
of artifactual, faunal, and stratigraphic data sets.
Our excavations proceeded using the standard
of an archaeological grid system, followed by its
subdivision into 1 m x 1 m excavation units; thus,
the 1-m square was the basic point of reference and
excavation unit. In the absence of clear stratigraphic
separation, as in massive, relatively undifferentiated
midden deposits, our approach has been to excavate,
by trowel, arbitrary 5-cm levels within a small area
or “quadrant” measuring 50 cm x 50 cm, or onequarter
of a 1 m x 1 m excavation unit. When a distinct
stratigraphic break occurred, this approach was
modified to excavate each different strata separately,
but within the same 5-cm level. This enabled us to
maintain the stratigraphic context of archaeological
data in the complex stratigraphy of the shell midden
and allowed us to excavate and document by functionally
linked layers.
Stratigraphic interpretation in shell midden archaeology
is both visual and tactile. It can be an
obvious change from a deposition of coarse Mya
arenaria (soft-shell clam) composed of whole or
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
128
almost whole valves to crushed Mytilus edulis (blue
mussel), or from relatively dense deposits to extremely
loose shell debris. Depending on the extent
of the depositional change throughout the site, these
transitions in shell species within strata could be
significant and indicate a switch that reflects local
resource availability. It could also represent nothing
more than the debris from lunch versus supper on
the same day, and, therefore, be of limited interest
for overall culture history. This ambiguity is further
complicated by the fact that while the sturdy shells
of clams may remain intact, the thin-shelled blue
mussel or Strongylocentrus drobachiensis (green sea
urchin) of Maine middens are more often recovered
in tiny fragments, even in the same deposit as the
larger soft-shell clam remains.
Preservation of organic remains in shell middens
(e.g., faunal remains as well as bone, antler, and
tooth artifacts) makes this type of site attractive for
study. In many cases, even the smallest of bones,
usually fragmented fish or small mammals, are present
within these shell deposits. Because recovery of
these small bones among the shells can be difficult,
we screened all deposits (“whole unit”) through
6.3-mm (1/4-inch) mesh in hopes of mitigating loss
of small finds. At the time this was implemented
(mid-1970s through the mid-1980s), this was not
the standard practice for shell excavation (e.g.,
Bourque 1995, Spiess and Lewis 2001). Even so,
many smaller elements can pass through the mesh
(Cannon 1999, James 1997, Shaffer 1992, Shaffer
and Sanches 1994). Rather than screen all matrix
through 3.1-mm (1/8-inch) or smaller screens—
which would greatly increase the necessary time
and labor—we saved samples of feature fill as well
as samples taken in columns throughout the site, for
later laboratory processing.
Documentation
Sanger’s experience with literally dozens of shell
middens along the Maine–New Brunswick coast led
to a protocol for midden description that involves
a qualitative/semi-quantitative evaluation of the
percentage of shell versus non-shell matrix, together
with species of shell and size ranges (see Table 1).
Importantly, this approach achieves more than stratigraphic
description, with the documentation aiding
in interpretation; for example, large, unbroken
shells probably indicate a primary dumping episode,
whereas highly fractured shell particles may mean
secondary or higher redeposition of shells. Extremely
small shell pieces (documented by a crushing index/
description) may represent trampling. As noted
earlier, however, highly crushed mussel shell may
not mean the same as crushed clam because mussel
shells are highly friable. Shell-free areas or zones
(defined as less than 15% shell by mass) within the
midden may represent house floors, which typically
have a very low shell content, while other shell-free
zones could result from house-floor cleaning and
redeposition of the matrix. Documentation using an
excavation-level form is completed for every level
in a 50 cm x 50 cm excavation quadrant of the 1
m x 1 m excavation unit. With experience, excavators
can be reasonably consistent at this level of
discrimination. Samples returned to the laboratory
provide a check on field assessments by comparison
of quantitative analysis with the qualitative excavation
descriptions.
Artifacts, including fire-cracked rocks, formal
lithic tools and ceramics, and worked bone, antler,
or tooth materials (when recognized), were pieceplotted
on forms designed to record matrix and
recovery information (faunal remains and lithic debitage
were not normally piece-plotted). These forms
were supplemented by horizontal plan drawings,
vertical section drawings as well as negative-based
photography using both black-and-white and color
slides. We have found that good field photography
can reveal subtle changes in matrix composition that
may not be immediately obvious during excavation,
especially where flash photography brings out subtle
textures.
Excavation terminology
Along with the development of this unique excavation
methodology came the development of terms
used to distinguish different kinds of deposits, and
while some terms are common in archaeology, others
have been defined based on experience excavating
Table 1. Written documentation definitions related to size and
matrix composition.
Size Definition
Whole Complete valves or gastropods
Large >3.0 cm
Medium 3.0–1.0 cm
Small less than 1.0–0.5 cm
Crushed less than 0.5 cm
Matrix
composition Definition
And 50% composition (i.e., clam and mussel, 50%
of each)
With 25% composition (i.e., clam with mussel; 75%
clam and 25% musseL)
Some less than 25%
Shell-free Visually no discernible shell or shell fragments;
through column sample analysis, this was
determined to be less than 15% shell by weight
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
129
shell middens. The word “feature” (or “facilities”) is
used in a traditional sense to refer to cultural items
such as hearths, walls, or lithic-reduction areas (e.g.,
Hester et al. 1997:4). In order to differentiate natural
deposition units from our excavation control units
(arbitrary levels), we use “strata” to refer to nonhuman
caused depositional levels, such as wind or
water deposits. Individual strata are labeled as Stratum
I, II, etc. from the surface down, or as archaeologists
encounter them. Note that this differs from
the traditional geological practice of designating
strata from the bottom of the section upwards. We
use “level” to distinguish our excavation levels—in
this case, 5 cm thick—and refer to them as “level 1,
2,” etc., employing Arabic numerals to distinguish
them from Strata, for which we use Roman numerals.
Soil horizons represent post-depositional soil
development, and should not be confused with strata
that are depositional by nature. These soil horizons
are described and documented using standard soil
sciences designations. For example, in the acidic
forest soils (spodosols) of Maine, the traditional
A, B, C soil horizons often have an elluviated, or
E Horizon, a grey, ash-like layer, underlying the A
Horizon (Soil Survey Staff 2015).
Column sampling methodology
The methodology of column-sample analysis
described here is based upon a system defined by excavation
in the Boothbay–Muscongus Bay archaeological
projects (Chase 1988, Skinas 1987). Column
samples were taken from the walls of excavation
units in order to examine the stratigraphy of these
areas in greater detail and to obtain fine-screened
samples of cultural remains. During the 1982 field
season, column samples were 25 cm x 25 cm using
5-cm levels. In 1985, these samples were reduced to
17 cm x 17 cm column-sampling units using 5-cm
levels. Simple chi-square test comparisons between
25 cm x 25 cm x 5 cm and 17 cm x 17 cm x 5 cm units
revealed little difference in information content.
This change offered a significant savings in terms
of ease of transport as well as laboratory processing
time. A level consists of arbitrary units used to excavate
culturally or naturally formed layers. If 2 or
more layers occurred within a 5-cm level, each layer
was excavated individually and noted with an alpha
designator (e.g., Levels 5a and 5b).
After drying, each level of the column sample
was sifted through a series of 3 nested sieves: No.
16 (16.0-mm mesh size), No. 6 (6.3-mm mesh size),
and No. 3 (2.38-mm mesh size). Matrix smaller than
the No. 3 sieve was collected in the pan fraction.
From the No. 16 and No. 6 sieves, contents were
sorted into various categories and quantified to allow
differences in each level and layer to be quantified.
Quantification is based on indices in order to
compare the mass of specific types of material (i.e.,
shell species, non-shell materials, pan fraction, etc.).
Specific index calculations are presented in Table 2.
Strata classification and typology
Using Skinas’s (1987) system of classification,
several strata categories were identified at the GSI
site. These categories were based on variables and
indices derived from column-sample data described
above.
Group I consists of cultural features (as defined
above). Group II constitutes shell refuse/dump areas.
While soft-shell clam dominates the midden
matrix, column sampling allowed us to document
in a quantitative manner changes in mollusk species
Table 2. Column sample analytical indices
Index Formula Comment
Size shell wt in 6.3-mm sieve This index compares the size of the composition of a sample
x 100 using the 2 upper sieves.
shell wt in 6.3-mm + 16-mm sieves
Shell shell wt in 6.3-mm + 16-mm sieves This index compares the weight of shell retained in the 2
x 100 upper sieves with the total weight to obtain a measure of
total level wt the amount of shell in the sample.
Matrix pan wt This index compares the matrix or pan fraction with the
x 100 entire sample to determine the relative amount of non-shell
total level wt matrix.
Artifact Artifact wt by class This index determines how much of the sample is the result
x 100 of artifactual material by class.
total level wt
M/S pan wt This index provides a rough comparison of the total shell and
non-shell matrix.
total shell wt from all fractions
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
130
that could represent different exploitation patterns.
Group III is characterized by relatively shell-free
cultural deposits, containing less than 15% shell
by weight; these are thought to represent domestic
areas or areas of intensive non-shell related activities,
such as lithic reduction. Group IV consists of
natural deposits attributed to geologic or pedologic
processes; these deposits include the overlying A
horizon or forest duff/peat (present-day surfaces) as
well as buried A and B horizons separating shellfish
strata or at the base of the midden.
Analysis terminology
These analytical groupings as discussed below
should not be interpreted to represent a single, seasonal
occupation, but instead are more in line with
the general use of “component” in archaeology. A
component usually reflects an occupation of a site
by a distinct cultural entity; thus, the time spans
represented by these groups are not equal.
A collection of artifacts and other indicators of
cultural activity in a site, when reasonably bound by
time, is called a “cultural zone”, or “zone” for short.
This is equivalent to the term “assemblage” or “component”
(e.g., Willey and Phillips 1958). Zone is not
necessarily equivalent to a single, seasonal occupation;
although it could represent a one-time stay,
more likely it is formed by repetitive occupation.
We number zones from the most recent to the oldest.
Zones are numbered, not named, because they correspond
to a specific site. In other words, Zone 1 at a
particular site may or may not have equivalence with
Zone 1 at another site (see Stein 1990 for a similar
discussion concerning “ethnozones”).
It should be emphasized that we do not wish
to equate cultural zones with “phases” in the Willey
and Phillips (1958) scheme. This approach to
teminology is in general accord with that used by
others working in the area with the sole exception
of the Late Archaic unit known as the “Moorehead
phase” (Bourque 1995). This terminology focuses
on stratigraphic classification and groupings of materials
into temporo-spatial stratigraphic units that
are tied together into these cultural zones that then
can be related to human behavior. Zones are artificial
divisions of a site’s history used in analysis, discussion,
and generalizations. From these zones, generalizations
about the site’s occupants and their local
adaptation and activities can be made.
Specialized areas and dwellings
Most archaeologists would anticipate that a site
will contain functionally specialized areas; shell
middens are no different. For example, Maine middens
tend to be deeper towards the front (sea-ward)
side and thin towards the land-ward portion of the
site. In many Maine coastal sites, the sea-ward side
was the primary dumping area. Manufacturing areas,
when recognized, tend to be further back in the sites.
G.F. Mathew (1884) noted circular, shell-free
depressions at the Bocabec Village site, Passamaquoddy
Bay, NB, Canada. He speculated they represented
dwellings. Excavations from 1969 through
1975 by Sanger in Passamaquoddy Bay confirmed
the idea. Continued research in the region continues
to confirm that these deposits represent
dwellings (Bishop 1983; Black 1983, 1992; Davis
1978; Hrynick, et al. 2012; Hrynick and Black
2016; Sanger 1971, 1976, 1986, 1987) using the
term “house pits”. Since the late 1800s, house pits
have been documented at a number of Downeast archaeological
sites, but rarely west of the Penobscot
River (Hamilton 1985, Sanger 2010). Typically,
houses are located at the rear of sites, not among
the massive piles of shells and other debris. House
pits tend to sit in a depression dug into the sediment
beneath the site, or may be dug through an older
layer of shells. In shape, they are rarely round,
but rather oval, measuring approximately 3 m x
4 m. Construction details vary from site to site, but
some houses have remains of posts or post “walls”
(using rocks to support posts) around the circumference,
and a fire hearth at the rear of the house.
The houses are assumed to have been covered in
bark and conical in shape. House floors tend to be
shell-free, and frequently consist of clean pea-sized
gravel brought up from the beach and scattered
over the bottom of the depression. Depending on
season of use, concentrations of artifacts may occur
on floors, although exceptions do occur. For example,
the Knox site (30-21) appears to have been
occupied during the warm part of the year; thus,
concentrations of lithic debitage in house pits are
not seen (Belcher 1988). However, at the GSI site,
lithic debitage is concentrated and found in housepit
deposits (Sanger 2010, Sanger and Chase 1983).
The Great Spruce Island Site (61-17)
This large, impressive shell midden sits in a protected,
southward-facing cove on the north end of
GSI in an area locally called the Bear’s Foot (Figs.
1, 2). The GSI site was first documented in 1978,
and formal excavations took place in 1982 and 1985
(Sanger 1979b, Sanger and Chase 1983). Approximately
40 m2 of surface area, almost evenly divided
between 1982 and 1985, have been excavated at the
GSI site.
The site overlies bedrock and, thus, has suffered
relatively little erosion. The central portion of the
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
131
Excavation summary
Exploratory excavations units (1 m x 1 m) were
dug during the 1978 survey (Sanger 1979b). Primary
excavations were conducted at the GSI site during
1982 and 1985 (Sanger and Chase 1983). Areas of
interest that were identified in 1978 and 1982 were
expanded in 1985 to gain a fuller understanding of
the cultural activities of the site.
Areas examined in 1982 appeared to represent
dumping, manufacturing, and living areas. In 1985,
a large dumping area, first examined in 1982, was
expanded in several directions, and eventually
exposed a discrete shell-dump mound, nearly 6 m
across. A dense concentration of stone flakes and
broken bifaces was recognized in an apparent manufacturing
locus in 1982, and exploration of this area
was expanded in 1985. North of this lithic reduction
area, and at the back of the site, a house pit was
partially excavated in 1982. In 1985, in order to locate
additional dwellings, two 50-cm–wide trenches
(Trenches 1 and 2) were excavated in alternating
1.0 m x 0.5 m excavation units along the back edge
of the site. These efforts allowed us to search for
tell-tale house pit profiles without disturbing much
site is grass-covered and extensively disturbed by
digging of artifact hunters. The rear and eastern
portions of the site are covered with maples, birch,
ash, and spruce with up to 1 m of forest duff or peat
with no mineral soil accumulation over shell and
non-shell deposits along the perimeter of the site.
Minimal historic disturbance has occurred in these
areas.
The reader should remember that the terminology
and strategies outlined above were being formalized
during the time that this site was excavated. Much of
the descriptive terminology was also refined in post-
GSI research, as found in Skinas (1987) and Belcher
(1988). Thus, there are some inconsistencies in how
terminology is applied, such as the initial shell-free
zone is described by functional description (house
pit [HP]) instead of as a shell-free zone. Additionally,
Feature 3 (a shell depositional area) should
not have been termed a feature per se. However, it
should be noted that this feature is a discrete mound
and not a coalesced, massive deposit of shell strata
(see Fig. 2).
Figure 1. Roque Island Archipelago, Washington Country, ME, USA; Site 61-17 is located in Quad 61 Site 17, left side of
the map, on Great Spruce Island.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
132
In general, 3 larger groupings of distinct layers
exist throughout the site: (1) an uppermost layer of
almost entirely complete or nearly complete softshell
clam shells; (2) an intermediate layer of fragmented
soft-shell clam shell mixed with blue mussel;
and (3) a bottom layer of fragmented soft-shell
clam shell, Modiolus modiolus (horse mussel), and
low quantities of blue mussel. The bottom 2 layers
are separated by a thin, buried peat horizon that has
been dated between 1808 and 1553 cal years B.P.
(SI-6524, peat) that may represent a period of site
abandonment (see Radiocarbon dates subsection
below).
Group I components
Feature 1: formed hearth. This feature consists
of 12 fire-cracked rocks and is located in the Western
Area in Shell-Free Zone A (SF-A, discussed below)
(Fig. 3). Debitage, small triangular bifaces, and a
of the contents. This specific type of search pattern
allowed a large area to be examined and used minimal
resources during the excavation plan.
Stratigraphy and component analysis
For purposes of discussion, we divide the GSI
site into 2 areas: a Western Area that includes the
northwestern portion of the site, containing Trenches
1 and 2, the HP 1 area, and all excavation units
west of the central disturbed area; and, an Eastern
Area that includes the scattered test pits east of the
disturbance. Most of the cultural deposits at the
GSI site are described as shell refuse (Group II).
We interpret these deposits as areas where shell
and other materials (primarily faunal remains and
broken tools/ceramics, etc.) were discarded. Little
other concentrated activity appears to have occurred
here. However, the midden is not homogeneous with
respect to shellfish species composition.
Figure 2. Great Spruce Island Archaeological Site (61-17). Locational designations keyed in text. CS represents representative
column samples discussed in text. Base map drawn by S. Bicknell.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
133
barbed bone point are associated with this feature.
Two radiocarbon dates are associated with this feature
(discussed below in Radiocarbon dates subsection).
Feature 2: scattered hearth. This feature consists
of a discontinuous circle of fire-cracked rocks, with
a size range of 10 cm to 20 cm across, and is located
in the Eastern Area, associated with Shell-Free Zone
C (SF-C). Several fragments of both pottery and
bone and a small area of burned blue mussel shell
occur within the feature. This feature is undated.
Group II components
While shell discard areas are present throughout
the Eastern Area, the most distinguishable of these
dumping areas is characterized as Feature 3. Again,
since our methodology and terminology were evolving,
this seems inconsistent; however, this 6-m
dumping area represents a discrete mound of diachronic,
disposal activities.
Feature 3: shell mound. This unusual feature is
located in in the Eastern Area (Fig. 4). The surface
contours of the site suggested mounding in the eastern
area. On a relatively flat pre-midden surface,
soft-shell clam shells were deposited, forming a thin
stratum. Over this stratum, a large number of blue
mussel and soft-shell clam shells were deposited,
followed by abandonment during which an Ao horizon
developed. A final, pure clam-dumping episode
terminated the cultural accumulation. Peat up to 70
cm in thickness covers the uppermost shell deposits
of Feature 3 (Fig. 5).
Group III components
Four shell-free zones occur at the GSI site. Shellfree
zones consist of those areas with a dark brown
to black soil color and coarse sandy texture, with
less than 15% of shell by weight or low absolute
quantities of shell (Skinas 1987).
House Pit 1 (HP 1). A large shell-free zone occurs
in the Western Area, behind shell refuse areas.
The sediment of HP 1 consists of dark sand and
gravel (Figs. 6, 7). The shell-free zone is contained
within an ovoid depression, estimated to measure
4 m x 3 m and 15–25 cm deep. A double row of
large (>20 cm) rocks lines at least one side along the
depressions perimeter. These may have supported
poles for the dwelling superstructure. Crushed clam
shell exists around the perimeter of HP 1. Shellrefuse
deposits occur in the area bordering HP 1.
Underlying a thick peat layer, an upper layer of softshell
clam and a lower level of fragmented soft-shell
clam and mussel occurs, separated by black sandy
loam. HP 1 truncates these shell-refuse deposits
along its southern border and appears to have been
dug into this earlier deposit.
The depression is interpreted to be a prehistoric
house pit (Sanger 2010), originally excavated into
subsoil (re-worked till) to the north and an earlier
shell-refuse deposit to the south. The occurrence of
shell-tempered, fabric-impressed ceramics in HP 1
and 2 earlier dentate-stamped ceramics in the prehouse
shell-refuse, supports this interpretation.
Shell-Free A (SF-A). This shell-free zone occurs
in the Western Area. The outline is discontinuous,
but it measures approximately
3 m x 2 m, north to south.
The sediment consists of
black, coarse sand with moderate
to heavy amounts of
medium-sized gravel. Near
the northern and western
perimeters of this shell-free
zone, coarse sand overlies a
layer of medium and small
clam shell. A black, silty
sediment, interpreted as an
Ao horizon, lies beneath this
shell layer (Fig. 8). A small
lens of crushed shell underlies
this black silty soil
with subsoil (re-worked till)
beneath (Fig. 7). Feature 1
is associated with this shellfree
zone.
Two column samples
Figure 3. Feature 1, “Formal” Hearth, Site 61-17, Western Area, SF-A; original drawn were taken in SF-A: Column
by C. Daniel and D. Sanger, 21 June 82.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
134
Sample 7 originates from the
north wall of excavation unit
N39 W52, while Column
Sample 3 comes from unit
N38 W51 (see Fig. 2; location
designated by CS3, CS6,
and CS7). Both samples were
associated with the highest
concentration of broken
and complete non-stemmed
broken bifaces and debitage
at the site, just outside of HP
1. In Column Sample 7 (see
Fig. 8), the break between an
upper clam zone and a lower
clam/mussel zone occurs at
30 cm below surface (b.s.).
In Column Sample 7, a black
silty layer occurs from 10
to 15 cm b.s. This layer is
thought to represent a buried
Ao horizon. SF-A occurs between
20 and 50 cm b.s. The
matrix of SF-A is brown to
black in color and possesses a
sandy loam texture with 10 to
15% medium rounded gravel.
Subsoil occurs below SF-A.
SF-B. Trenches 1 and 2,
designed to “prospect” for
additional house pits, lie in
the rear landward portion of
the site, just east of the HP
1 area. Beneath a thick peat
layer, discontinuous layers of
clam refuse midden overlie
a dark brown to black coarse
sand with medium gravel.
A pseudo-scallop shell-impressed
sherd and a stemmed
biface are associated with
SF-B. Although only a small
portion of SF-B was tested, it
may be a house pit.
SF-C. This shell-free
zone occurs in the southwestern
corner of Feature 3 and
measures at least 2.5 m x 2
m. SF-C occurs beneath the
upper buried Ao horizon associated
with Feature 3 (see
Figs. 4, 5). Feature 2 and a
pseudo-scallop shell vessel
are associated with SF-C.
Figure 4. (A) Feature 3 shell dump area, Eastern Area, Site 61-17. (B) Section drawing
based on original by W. Belcher, 16 July 85. Photography by Stephen Bicknell.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
135
Figure 6. (A) Shell-free zone/HP 1, Western Area, Site 61-17 (photograph view is grid south). (B) Plan map based on original
by T. Chase and D. Sanger, 29 June 1982. Photography by Stephen A. Bicknell.
Figure 5. Column Sample 6 indices graph (Feature 3). Table 2 presents the formulas that are used to calculate these indices.
Feature 3 is a shell dump feature in the Eastern Area of the site. The indices show the relationship between shell debris and
the non-shell deposits. The graph shows a spike of non-shell matrix that represents a break between the Middle and Late
Ceramic Periods.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
136
natural peat (or “forest duff”) overlying the shell
midden. Intermediary soil horizons occur throughout
the site. Based on radiocarbon dating (see below)
and ceramic association, this stratum appears to
represent an abandonment period sometime between
1808 and 1553 calibrated years B.P.
Group IV components
As discussed above, these components represent
the natural soil horizons present throughout the site.
These occur in 2 obvious places: the pre-site occupation,
indicated as spodosols at the base of the
GSI site shell midden overlying the bedrock surface,
as well as the post-site occupation, represented by
Figure 7. Shell-free zone/HP 1 plan view and section drawing, Site 61-17; North Wall, N48 W51-52.5. From original section
drawing by T. Chase, 28 June 82.
Figure 8. Column Sample 7 indices graph (SF-A). Table 2 presents the formulas that are used to calculate these indices.
Shell-free A is a thought to represent a house pit that occurs in the Western Area of the site, back behind the main shell
dumping areas. The indices show a general lack of any kind of shell debris based on weight of each level from the column.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
137
Radiocarbon dates
Two main problems seemed to have affected the
use of radiocarbon at the GSI site: organic contamination
(i.e., rootlets) and the reservoir effect in marine
shells (Taylor and Bar-Yosef 2014). A specific
example from HP 1 focuses on the re-dating of a
single charcoal sample due to contamination originating
from small, modern rootlets. Additionally, the
reservoir effect occurs when organic specimens are
drawing carbon from a non-atmospheric carbon reservoir;
in this case, marine shells are drawing carbon
from an oceanic source. Atmospheric and oceanic
reservoirs are not in equilibrium, causing measured
dates from marine shells to be older than those from
comparably aged charcoal specimens. This can explain
the differences in the dates from marine shell
and charcoal from the same feature or stratigraphic
unit (Rick et al. 2005). All data are initially reported
as uncalibrated radiocarbon years (RCY) B.P. Table
3 displays provenience, uncalibrated RCY BP, as
well as calibrated BC/AD and BP dates using ΔR of
93 as appropriate for marine shell samples.
Housepit 1 (HP 1). Two radiocarbon dates are
associated with HP 1: 1060 ± 50 uncalibrated RCY
B.P. (SI-5488a, charcoal) and 675 ± 60 uncalibrated
RCY B.P. (SI-5488, charcoal). Both dates originate
from the same sample of charcoal. Sample SI-5488
returned a date much younger than was expected
based on the ceramic association. Sample SI-5488a
was subjected to a more rigorous pre-treatment
procedure to remove small rootlets that appeared
to have contaminated the sample. We feel that SI-
5488a is a more accurate date given the introduction
of modern carbon evident in sample SI-5488. The
calibrated date for SI-5488a is 1170–820 cal years
B.P. at a 95.4% probability.
Feature 1. Feature 1, a formed hearth, occurs in
SF-A; two radiocarbon dates are associated: 590 ±
40 uncalibrated RCY B.P. (SI-5486, charcoal) and
1165 ± 75 uncalibrated RCY B.P. (SI-5487, softshell
clam). While attempts were made to use the
reservoir carbon database (McNeely et al. 2006), we
feel that the date on the soft-shell clam should be
rejected. The calibrated date for the carbon sample
is 654–534 cal years B.P. at a 95.4% probability.
Peat. In Column Sample 1, adjacent to Feature 1
and below charcoal sample SI-5487, a date of 1695
± 60 uncalibrated RCY B.P. (SI-6367, soft-shell
clam) appears to support this sequence, but due to
the reservoir effect, may read older than the actual
depositional event. The corrected and calibrated date
is 1685–1355 cal years B.P. at a 95.4% probability.
A peat sample from level 11 (100–110 cm b.s.) of
Column Sample 1 produced the oldest date from
this area: 1745 ± 45 uncalibrated RCY B.P. (SI-
6524, peat). This sample represents the soil horizon
between the upper soft-shell clam midden and the
lower soft-shell clam and blue/horse mussel midden.
Its corrected and calibrated date is 1808–1553 cal
years B.P. at a 95.4% probability.
Stratigraphic summary
Shell refuse is present throughout the site, but
appears to be concentrated in the Eastern Area.
Feature 3 is an excellent example of shell refuse and
discard in the form of an artificially built mound.
While not meant to suggest that the shell deposits are
homogeneous over the site, 2 major divisions can be
seen through visual observations as well as column
sample analysis.
The major divisions seen in shell refuse is an
upper layer of clam shell with blue mussel shell
and a lower zone of clam and mussel (both blue
and horse). A period of abandonment is suggested
by the Ao horizon that separates these 2 major layers.
The calibrated date of 1808–1553 years B.P
(sample SI-6524, peat) represents the time of this
abandonment.
All but one of the shell-free zones occur in the
Western Area. It is here that one of the best examples
Table 3. Radiocarbon dates. Calibrated with OxCal 4.2 on-line version using the International Calibration Curve 2013 (https://c14.arch.
ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html; accessed 9 January 2017). All calibrations done within 95.4% probability. ΔR of 93 based on averaged mean
of 3 samples samples from McNeeley, et al. (2006) and the calib.org marine reservoir database, accessed 10 January 2017.
Sample Uncalibrated Reservoir Calibrated date AD
No. Material Provenience RY BP corrected (ΔR 93) 95.4% probability Calibrated date BP
SI-5486 Charcoal Feature 1, 590 ± 40 N/A 1296–1416 cal AD 654–534 cal BP
N38 W51, Level 5
5SI-5487 Mya arenaria Feature 1, N38 W51, 1165 ± 75 1072 ± 75 771–1154 cal AD 1179–796 cal BP
(soft-shell clam) Level 5
SI-5488 Charcoal HP1 675 ± 60 N/A Contaminated N/A Contaminated N/A
SI-5488a Charcoal HP1 1060 ± 50 N/A 780–1148 cal AD 1170–802 cal BP
SI-6367 Mya arenaria Col. 1 1695 ± 60 1602 ± 60 265–595 cal AD 1685–1355 cal BP
N38 W51, Level 8
SI-6527 “Peat” Column Sample 1, 1745 ± 45 N/A 142–397 cal AD 1808–1553 cal BP
Level 11
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
138
of a house pit along the Maine coast exists (HP 1;
Belcher 1988), which is thought to date between
1170 and 802 calibrated years B.P. An additional
house pit may have been encountered in Trenches
1 and 2. A concentrated area of lithic tools and debitage
occurs at about 10 m to the west of SF-A and
Feature 1, which is thought to date between 654 to
534 calibrated years B.P.
Cultural Zones
The artifacts from the GSI site have been assigned
to 4 cultural zones that reflect different
temporal occupations. From the earliest (oldest) to
most recent they are: Zone 4 - Late Archaic Period;
Zone 3 - Early Middle Ceramic Period; Zone 2 - Late
Middle Ceramic Period; and Zone 1 - Late Ceramic
Period. Artifacts from these zones, the cultural activities,
and, with some limitations, subsistence will
be discussed for each assemblage. Primary ceramic
analysis followed protocols in Belcher (1988) with
chronological assignments following Petersen and
Sanger (1991).
Zone 4: Late Archaic Period—ca. unknown to
3000 B.P.
Assemblage 1 occurs in disturbed contexts as
surface or shore finds. No substantive information
on this zone can be offered due to
the general lack of context. Two celt
fragments were recovered from the
site and represent the sole artifacts
tentatively assigned to this component.
It evidently represents an occupation
that appears to have been
eliminated by shore erosion.
Zone 3: Early Middle Ceramic Period
(CP2)—2150 to 1650 B.P.
Zone 3 represents a major utilization
and occupation of the GSI site. A
single radiocarbon date and its association
with a possible abandonment
of the site gives a terminus for Zone
3 between 1800 and 1500 calibrated
years B.P.
Artifacts. Thirteen ceramic vessel
lots are assigned to Zone 3. These
are small-toothed, simple and rocker
dentate-stamped vessels as well as
pseudo-scallop shell (simple and
rocker-stamped)-impressed surface
treatments. A single bone point,
probably an awl, and 2 fragments of
worked bone are associated with this zone. Stone
tools include a stemmed biface base, a stemmed
biface, 2 non-stemmed bifaces, a biface tip, and an
end-scraper.
Activity areas. Two shell-free zones (SF-B and
SF-C) are grouped into Zone 3. The lower portion
of Feature 3 shell deposits is also associated with
Zone 3, representing much of the shell refuse accumulation
during this time period. The lower
portion of the shell midden is composed of softshell
clam, blue mussel, and horse mussel. Much
of Feature 3 (shell mound) began as a horizontal
dump during this time frame. SF-B and SF-C may
represent Zone 3 house pits.
SF-B occurs along the back edge of the site. A
pseudo-scallop shell-decorated ceramic fragment
(Vessel 18; see Fig. 9) was recovered from this
shell-free zone along with a broken, stemmed biface.
SF-C occurs adjacent to Feature 3 and encompasses
Feature 2 (hearth). Later shell accumulation caused
Feature 3 to expand over SF-C.
Towards the end of the Zone 3 occupation, the
site area appears to have been abandoned for some
time. A thin peat horizon has developed over the
shell deposits throughout most of the site, thus
creating a clear division in the stratigraphy. The
abandonment appears to have occurred between
1808 and 1553 calibrated years B.P.
Figure 9. Pseudo-scallop shell ceramic sherd from SF-B, Site 61-17. Scale is in
cm. Photograph by Stephen A. Bicknell.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
139
802 calibrated years B.P. Ten non-stemmed bifaces
and biface fragments, 3 stemmed bifaces, 6 utilized
flakes, 2 abraders, and a single hammer stone constitute
the artifacts in the house pit deposits.
A large quantity of lithic flakes occurs within this
deposit. Approximately 18% (n = 1254) of the total
site flake count occurs in this area, which comprises
less than 5% of the total excavated area. Many of
the flakes occur near the edge of the house pit near
the double row of rocks. This concentration of flakes
may represent a floor-cleaning activity with sharp
objects “swept” to the perimeter of the living area.
Shell dumps. These areas are difficult to fully
interpret due to the heavy historic disturbance processes
in the central portion of the site. However,
based on a few scattered test pits along the eastern
side of the disturbed area (Fig. 2), this area appears
to have been used primarily for shell refuse. Additionally,
shell has been dumped around the perimeter
of HP 1 and occurs over the upper portions
of Feature 3. Mussel shells have almost completely
disappeared as a stratigraphic particle as well as a
presumed subsistence item. Thus, Zone 1 deposits
are composed of complete and near-complete softshell
clam valves.
Lithic reduction station. A total of 3671 flakes
(55% of the site total) occurs in association with
SF-A and Feature 1. The large quantity of broken
bifaces, ranging from rough preforms to unstemmed
bifaces ready for notching, and a large quantity
of flakes suggest that this area represents a lithic
reduction station. The dominant material is a type
of banded rhyolite that is common throughout the
Downeast Region of Maine. A possible quarry site
(site 62-13; site 13 on Fig. 1) for the local banded
rhyolitic materials exists ~2 km from the GSI site
and may have been the source used by the GSI occupants.
Over 54% of the total biface count (n = 39; total
= 71) from GSI originated from SF-A and Feature 1.
These artifacts include biface tips and midsections,
as well as stemmed and non-stemmed bifaces (bases
and whole). Those unstemmed bifaces that possess
a base appear to be preforms either abandoned or
broken during manufacture.
Discussion and Conclusion
Through the detailed processing and documentation
of a shell midden excavation, it is possible
to derive a more detailed reconstruction of a site.
Shell middens by their very nature are extremely
complex and require a level of documentation that
many other types of archaeological deposits may
not require. Through Sanger’s research program and
Zone 2: Late Middle Ceramic Period (CP 3)—
1650 to 1350 years B.P.
Zone 2 is only represented by materials and
deposition found in the Feature 3 shell mound area.
However, it is thought that much of the shell deposition
began during this time period, based on the
stratigraphic analysis of Feature 3.
Artifacts. Most artifacts from this zone are ceramic
vessels lots. Five ceramic vessel lots from the
site are assigned to Zone 2; these vessels lots are
grit-tempered and small, simple and rocker dentatestamped
surface treatments. A single, stemmed
biface is associated with this zone as are 3 nonstemmed
bifaces. No other items can be positively
assigned to the zone.
Activity areas. The upper mounding of Feature 3
is associated with this zone; thus, soft-shell clam and
blue mussel represent the dominant shellfish deposits.
No shell-free zones are assigned to this cultural
period. Substantial shell accumulation occurred during
this time as judged by deposits above the “peat”
horizon that developed between Zone 2 and Zone 3
deposits.
Zone 1: Late Ceramic Period (CP4 to CP 6)—
1350 to 400 years B.P.
This zone marked particularly high prehistoric
use of the GSI site. However, the stratigraphic record
of this occupation is disturbed and mixed by
prehistoric as well as recent historic activities. Root
action and tree throws have also mixed much of the
upper portions of the site.
Artifacts. Over half (n = 11; 69%; total = 16) of the
stemmed bifaces from the GSI site are associated with
Zone 1. Almost all non-stemmed bifaces and fragments
(including distal tips and midsection fragments)
(n = 35; 64%; total = 55) occur in association with Feature
1 (formed hearth)/SF-A and the Lithic Reduction
Station (see below) to the east. Worked bone found in
association with Zone 1 deposits included tools, such
as awls, points, and a tubular bone bead.
Two ceramic vessel lots are associated with
Zone 1 features and stratigraphic layers; both are
cord-wrapped stick-impressed vessels. One of the
cord-wrapped stick vessels dates between 950 and
700 years B.P., based on Petersen and Sanger (1991).
Based on the radiocarbon dates from HP 1 and
Feature 1 as well as attribute characteristics of the
artifacts, most of the occupation occurred between
ca. 600 and 1100 calibrated years B.P.
Activity areas. Several activity areas are present
at the GSI site, including dwellings, shell dump areas,
and a lithic reduction station.
House Pit 1 (HP 1). The most reliable radiocarbon
date places this dwelling between 1170 and
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
140
by Stephen A. Bicknell, while the remainder were prepared
by W.R. Belcher. Steve’s real talent was the field and
artifact photography, particularly of Figure 9. The senior
author acknowledges and appreciates David Sanger for
his mentoring and friendship, now stretching back several
decades. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewer
and our guest editor, Ken Holyoke, for their patience and
suggestions to create a much tighter paper with more
robust interpretations and descriptions. Finally, we thank
Matt Betts and Gabe Hrynick for organizing the original
symposium and inviting us to submit an earlier version of
this paper.
Literature Cited
Belcher, W.R. 1988. Archaeological investigations at the
Knox Site (30-21), East Penobscot Bay, Maine. M.Sc.
Thesis. University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 267 pp.
Bishop, J.C. 1983. The Partridge Island Site: An Early
and Middle Woodland-related assemblage in Passamaquoddy
Bay. M.A. Thesis. Master’s University,
Hamilton, ON, Canada. 99 pp.
Black, D.W. 1983. What images return: A study of the
stratigraphy and seasonality of a small shell midden in
the West Isles of New Brunswick. M.A. Thesis. Mc-
Master's University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 132 pp.
Black, D.W. 1992. Living Close to the Ledge: Prehistoric
Human Ecology of the Bliss Islands, Quoddy Region,
New Brunswick, Canada. Occasional Papers in Northeastern
Archaeology 6. Copetown Press, Dundas, ON,
Canada. 266 pp.
Bourque, B.J. 1971. Prehistory of the central Maine coast.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA, USA. 300 pp.
Bourque, B.J. 1975. Comments on the Late Archaic populations
of central Maine: The view from the Turner
Farm Site. Arctic Anthropology 12:35–44.
Bourque, B.J. 1995. Diversity and Complexity in Prehistoric
Maritime Societies: A Gulf of Maine Perspective.
Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA. 411 pp.
Bourque, B.J. 1996. On misguided methodology: A
response to Dincauze. The Review of Archaeology
17(1):50–54.
Callum, K. 1994. The geoarchaeology of the Nahanada
Site (16-90), Pemaquid Beach, Bristol, Maine. M.Sc.
Thesis. University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 524 pp.
Cannon, M.D. 1999. A mathematical model of the effects
of screen size on zooarchaeological relative abundance
measures. Journal of Archaeological Sciences
26:205–214.
Carlson, C.C. 1986. Maritime catchment areas: An analysis
of prehistoric fishing strategies in the Boothbay
region of Maine. M.Sc. Thesis. Institute for Quaternary
Studies, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA.
258 pp.
Carlson, R.L. 1993. Soil science and a Northwest Coast
shell midden. The Review of Archaeology 14(1):15–20.
Chase, T.H.P. 1988. Shell midden seasonality using multiple
faunal indicators: Applications of the archaeology
of the Boothbay region. M.Sc. Thesis. University
of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 292 pp.
continuously developing methodological and analytical
strategies, we have created a robust method
of analyzing and documenting these deposits.
By 1985, the final year of our field research at
Roque Island, we had largely refined our excavation
techniques to reflect our interests and overcame
many of the problems we recognized in our analysis.
This research strategy guided the remainder of research
we conducted in East Penobscot Bay and the
Downeast region through the 1990s.
We conclude with several thoughts:
1. No two shell middens are identical; therefore,
each presents its own set of challenges
and problems that must be overcome;
2. We have not fully solved the issue of disentangling
the many micro-strata that may,
or may not, be significant for interpretation;
3. All excavation is a compromise between
excavating enough midden to say something
about the site, while conducting the excavations
carefully enough to do justice to the site
contents;
4. Because excavation technique is dependent
on research questions, we would anticipate
that changes in the latter will influence future
field and laboratory research.
The data described above from the Great Spruce
Island site is only a small portion of the data currently
being revised for publication, including the detailed
faunal, artifact, and debitage analyses for the cultural
zones as described above. The creation of this
fine-grained data and stratigraphic analysis is a direct
result of the development of this typology and component
analysis by Sanger and his students (Belcher
1988; Callum 1994; Carlson 1986; Chase 1988; Kellogg
1982, 1991; Mack 1994; Skinas 1987).
Acknowledgments
First, without the cooperation of the Gardner Corporation,
this research project would not be possible. We
extend gratitude to them for their assistance and access
to these important archaeological sites. David Sanger
directed all aspects of the field and laboratory research.
Many students and agencies have assisted in the research
conducted in the Roque Island Archipelago, either through
research and analytical activities or funding. Funding was
provided by Elizabeth Noyce, the Maine Historic Preservation
Commission, and the University of Maine. Column
samples were sorted and recorded by David Skinas, Lewis
Richards, and Timothy Dinsmore. Skinas also analyzed
the 1982 cultural material; his notes and analysis were invaluable
to this study. Pamela DeWitt and Randall Preston
assisted in the analysis of the lithic debitage. Figures 1 and
2 and the photographs of Figures 4, 6, and 9 were prepared
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
141
Rick, T.C., R.L. Vellanoweth, and J.M. Erlandson. 2005.
Radiocarbon dating and the “old shell” problem: Direct
dating of artifacts and cultural chronologies in
coastal and other aquatic regions. Journal of Archaeological
Sciences 32:1641–1648.
Sanger, D. 1971. Passamaquoddy Bay prehistory: A
summary. Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin
11:14–19.
Sanger, D. 1975. Culture change as an adaptive process
in the Maine–Maritimes Region. Arctic Anthropology
12(2):60–75.
Sanger, D. 1976. The earliest settlements: 9000 B.C. to
A.D. 1600. Pp. 3–14, In D. Thompson (Ed.). Maine
Forms of American Architecture. Museum of Art,
Colby College, Waterville, ME, USA. 362 pp.
Sanger, D. 1979a. Discovering Maine’s Archaeological
Heritage. Maine Historic Preservation Commission,
Augusta, ME, USA. 156 pp.
Sanger, D. 1979b. Report of the 1978 UMO Coastal Survey:
The maiden voyage of the Kiasis. Unpublished
report submitted to Maine Historical Preservation
Commission, Augusta, ME, USA. 37 pp.
Sanger, D. 1981. Unscrambling the messages in the midden.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 9:37–42.
Sanger, D. 1983. Archaeozoology in the Gulf of Maine.
In BAR International Series, S-183:225–235. British
Archaeological Reports, Oxford, UK.
Sanger, D. 1985. Seashore archaeology in New England.
The Quarterly Review of Archaeology 6(2):3–4.
Sanger, D. 1986. An introduction to the prehistory of the
Passamaquoddy Bay region. The American Review of
Canadian Studies 16:139–160.
Sanger, D. 1987. The Carson Site and the Late Ceramic
Period in Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick.
Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 135,
Mercury Series. Canadian Museum of Civilization,
Ottawa, ON, Canada. 157 pp.
Sanger, D. 1988. Maritime adaptations in the Gulf of
Maine. Archaeology of Eastern North America
16:81–99.
Sanger, D. 1996. Testing the model: Hunter-gatherer use
of space in the Gulf of Maine, USA. World Archaeology
27(3):512–526.
Sanger, D. 2010. Semi-subterranean houses in the Ceramic
Period along the coast of Maine. The Maine
Archaeological Society Bulletin 50(2):23–46.
Sanger, D., and T.H.P Chase. 1983. An introduction to the
archaeology of the Roque Island Group, Maine. Paper
presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association,
Halifax, NS, Canada.
Schiffer, M.B. 2010. Behavioral Archaeology: Principles
and Practice. Equinox Handbooks in Anthropological
Archaeology. Equinox Publishing, Oakville, CT, USA.
256 pp.
Shaffer, B.S. 1992. Quarter-inch screening: Understanding
bias in recovery of vertebrate faunal remains.
American Antiquity 57(1):129–136.
Shaffer, B.S., and J.L.J. Sanches. 1994. Comparison of
1/8"- and 1/4"-mesh recovery of controlled samples of
small-to-medium sized mammals. American Antiquity
59(3):525–530.
Davis, S.A. 1978. Teacher's Cove: A prehistoric site on
Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick. New Brunswick
Archaeology 1. Department of Historical and
Cultural Resources, Fredericton, NB, Canada. 64 pp.
Dincauze, D.F. 1996. Deconstructing shell middens in
New England. The Review of Archaeology 17(1):45–
49.
Hamilton, N.D. 1985. Maritime adaptations in Western
Maine: The Great Diamond Island Site. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA. 590 pp.
Harris, E.C. 1989. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy.
Second Edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
USA. 170 pp.
Hester, T.R., H.J. Shafer, and K.L. Feder. 1997. Field
Methods in Archaeology. Mayfield Publishing Co.,
Mountain View, CA, USA. 592 pp.
Holliday, V.T. 1990. Pedology in archaeology. Pp. 525–
540, In N.P. Lasca and J. Donahue (Eds.). Archaeological
Geology of North America. Centennial Special
Volume. Vol. 4. Geological Society of America, Boulder,
CO, USA. 633 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
40:23–67.
Hrynick, M.G., M.W. Betts, and D.W. Black. 2012. A
Late Maritime Woodland Period dwelling feature
from Nova Scotia’s south shore: Evidence for pattern
use of domestic space. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 40:1–25.
James, S.R. 1997. Methodological issues concerning
screen-size recovery rates and their effects on archaeofaunal
interpretations. Journal of Archaeological
Sciences 24:385–397.
Kellogg, D.C. 1982. Environmental factors in archaeological
site location for the Boothbay region of the Maine
coast, with an assessment of the impact of coastal
erosion on the archaeological record. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 566 pp.
Kellogg, D.C. 1991. Prehistoric landscapes, paleoenvironments,
and archaeology of western Muscongus
Bay, Maine. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maine,
Orono, ME, USA. 317 pp.
Mack, K.E. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at the
Todd Site (17-11), Muscongus Bay, Maine. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA. 271 pp.
Mathew, G.F. 1884. Discoveries at a village of the Stone
Age at Bocabec. Bulletin of the Natural History Soceity
of New Brunswick 3:6–29.
Moorehead, W.K. 1922. A Report on the Archaeology of
Maine. Phillips Academy, Andover, MA, USA. 296
pp.
Petersen, J.B., and D. Sanger 1991. An aboriginal ceramic
sequence for Maine and the Maritime Provinces. Pp.
121–178, In M. Deal and S. Blair (Eds.). Prehistoric
Archaeology in the Maritime Provinces: Past and Present
Research. Reports in Archaeology No. 8. The
Council of Maritime Provinces Publications, Fredericton,
NB, Canada. 330 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
W.R. Belcher and D. Sanger
2017 Special Volume 10
142
Skinas, D.C. 1987. The Todd Site: A case study of shell
midden formation. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Maine,
Orono, ME, USA. 254 pp.
Soil Survey Staff. 2015. Soil Survey Manual. US Department
of Agriculture, Washington DC, USA. 318 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 No. 11. Maine Archaeological Society
and Maine Historic Preservation Office, Augusta, ME,
USA. 178 pp.
Stein, J.K. 1990. Archaeological stratigraphy. Pp. 513–
523, In N.P. Lasca and J. Donahue (Eds.). Archaeological
Geology of North America. Centennial Special
Publication. 4 Vols. Geological Society of America,
Boulder, CO, USA. 633 pp.
Stein, J.K. 1992. Deciphering a Shell Midden. Academic
Press, New York, NY, USA. 375 pp.
Taylor, R.E., and O. Bar-Yosef. 2014. Radiocarbon Dating:
An Archaeological Perspective. Second Edition.
Routledge, London, UK. 403 pp.
Willey, G., and P. Phillips. 1958. Method and Theory in
American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL, USA. 269 pp.