unscrambling messages in the midden

UNSCRAMBLING MESSAGES IN THE MIDDENAuthor(s): David SangerSource: Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol. 9 (FALL 1981), pp. 37-42Published by: Eastern States Archeological FederationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40897737 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 20:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Eastern States Archeological Federation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchaeology of Eastern North America.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.136 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:23:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=esaf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40897737?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ARCHAEOLOGY OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA 37

1977 "Post-Glacial environments and cultural change in the Hudson River basin." Man in the Northeast 13:96-98. Stuckenrath, R.

1966 "The Debert archaeological project, Nova Scotia: radiocarbon dating." Quaternaria 8:75-80. Swigart, E. K.

1975 The Prehistory of the Indians of Western Connecticut, part 1, 9000 -1000 BC. Shepaug Valley Archaeological Society, Washington, Ct.

Terasmae, J. 1975 "Notes on climatic change, environment, and man." In Environmental Change in the Maritimes, J. G. Ogden

and M. J. Harvey, eds., pp. 17-36. Tuck, J. A.

1971 "An Archaic cemetery in Northern Newfoundland." American Antiquity 36 (3):343-358. 1974 "Early Archaic horizons in eastern North America." Archaeology of Eastern North America 2 (l):72-80. 1975a Prehistory of Saglek Bay, Labrador: Archaic and Paleo-Eskimo occupations. National Museum of Man,

Mercury Series no.32. 1975b "Earlv cultures in Southern Labrador." Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 34:12. 1975c "The Northeastern Maritime Continuum: 8000 years of cultural development in the far Northeast." Arctic

Archaeology 12 (2): 139-147. 1977 "Early cultures on the Strait of Belle Isle, Labrador." In Newman and Salwen: 472-480.

Werner, D. J. 1964 "Vestiges of Paleo-Indian occupation near Port Jervis, N.Y.." New World Antiquity 11:30-52, London.

Wilcox, U. V. III. 1967 "The Lewis-Walpole site of Farmington, Connecticut, a preliminary report." Bulletin of the Archaeological

Society of Connecticut 35:5-48. Williams, S. J. and J. B. Stoltman.

1965 "An outline of Southeastern United States prehistory with particular emphasis on the Paleo-Indian Era." In Quaternary of the United States, Wright and Frey, eds. pp. 669-683.

Witthoft, J. 1952 A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Pensylvania: an early hunting culture. Proceedings of the American Philo-

sophical Society 96:464-495. 1971 "Notes on Archaic Cultures." In Kent et al: 97-108.

Wright, H. E. and D. J. Frey, eds. 1965 The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton University Press.

Wyatt, R. J. 1977 "The Archaic on Long Island." In Newman and Salwen: 400-410.

UNSCRAMBLING MESSAGES IN THE MIDDEN

David Sänger

Introduction

"One of the assumptions ... is that a shell midden is the occupied locus of the people who deposited the shell . . . ." The author of this statement, Louis A. Brennan (1977:122), examines the evidence from oyster (Crassostrea virginica) shell middens in the Hudson River Valley, New York, and concludes that the expected age of the artifacts does not match the age of the shell when dated by radiocarbon. Brennan's viewpoint, put forth as a "proposition," is "cultural contents of middens are intrusive into them, deriving from later periods of occupation . . ." (1977:122). As a consequence of his analysis Brennan (1977:137) states, "it may never be assumed that artifacts found in shell middens or heaps are in a contemporary context." The burden of proof is on the investigator, in other words, to establish the association. Brennan (1977:137) concludes, that while his "proposition" is not intended to be "absolute and without exception," his final sentence reads, "That campers lived on or within the mass of shell they were accumulating is simply not credible."



38 VOLUME 9, 1981

Brennan's paper is interesting for a number of reasons. It runs counter to the general assumption that artifacts found in a shell midden matrix are contemporary with the deposition of that matrix. It raises the possibility that shell middens should be considered as a distinctive form of site where a different set of depositional factors are involved. It highlights the issue of taphonomy , or post depositional history, of artifacts and other data classes in shell middens.

Shell middens are, or were, widely distributed in the world. The literature on shell middens shows little regard for such important issues as depositional and post depositional history of the deposits. As a consequence, they have been dug without due regard for these parameters. Shell middens, defined as having at least some shell preserved, are noted for their depth of deposit and low artifact yield per excavated unit. On the other hand, the carbonate released by the shells creates a favorable environment for organic preservation, thus allowing archaeologists to recover bone, antler, and tooth artifacts in addition to copious quantities of faunal remains. It perhaps this last factor, combined with the ecological reductionist model, that has triggered the resurgence of shell midden archaeology. Brennan's query regarding the temporal association of the "diagnostic" artifacts and the shell assumes a real significance if the current midden ecological analyses are to have any anthropological relevance, because the cultural dimensions of the analyses are derived from artifacts and features. And these, of course, are assumed to be contemporary with the shells and other faunal remains.

Brennan's proposition that artifacts and the associated shells are not contemporary is tested utilizing data from shell middens in the Maine-New Brunswick area. For the proposition to be acceptable, it must be shown that the artifacts and features are of different ages than the surrounding shells. Obviously, stratigraphie associational evidence is not admissible; an independent dating process, such as radiocarbon, must be employed.

Radiocarbon dates, because of the tolerance ranges, cannot prove synchroneity. However, it is possible, by comparing the dates and the tolerance ranges, to make a statement to the effect that the ranges do, or do not, overlap (Stuckenrath, personal communication). This paper assumes that if the ranges overlap at the 1 sigma level one cannot say that the dates are different. Therefore, dates on charcoal and shells from the same site overlapping at the 1 sigma level indicate that the provisions of Brennan's proposition are not met. Dates whose ranges do not overlap would imply an acceptance of the Brennan proposition.

Testing the Proposition

The proposition is examined against data from shell midden excavations in Maine and the Canadian province of New Brunswick. Although excavations date to the 19th century, concentrated, problem- oriented research is a feature of the last decade. Site distributions and general cultural associations have been reviewed by Sänger (1979). The specific data used to test the proposition are taken from two sites in Passamaquoddy Bay, on the Maine-New Brunswick border, where fieldwork from 1968 to 1977 has resulted in information on the last 2500 years of the prehistoric period. The work has been reported in several places, and analysis is continuing under Sanger's direction (Sänger 1971; Sanger 1976; Davis 1974; Bonnichsen and Sänger 1977). Sponsoring agencies include the National Museums of Canada, Canada Council, the Province of New Brunswick, the National Foundation, and the University of Maine.

The Passamaquoddy Bay shell middens are dominated by the soft shell clam (My a arenaria). Sites are located on south and southeast exposures, near a source of freshwater, and in proximity to a clam bed. Midden content can range from nearly 100 percent shell to just a trace in features. In no site is it possible to follow continuous strata subdividing the cultural deposit. The sites are characterized by discontinuous lenses of shell and soil reflecting, presumably, different dumping episodes. Multiple component sites are present, but long term, continuous occupation spanning 1000 years or more seems unlikely. All faunal seasonal indicators point to a late fall through spring occupation.

Of special interest in these sites is the presence of functionally specialized areas of activity. The 1970 excavations at Sand Point confirmed the early observations of G. F. Mathew (1884) who reported semi-subterranean houses at the Bocabec Village site, also in Passamaquoddy Bay. The depressions in the middens average about 4 meters in length and always a little less in width, producing an oval form. Occasional post remains and supporting boulders are present. Internally, a hearth is generally located at one end of the oval depression. A near conical superstructure, sloping steeply towards the entrance and




less steeply towards the rear, is projected on the basis of the archaeological evidence and an ethnographic photograph (Sänger 1976:13). The depressions range from a few centimeters to 65 cm in depth. Inside the house is a dark, greasy fill that is practically shell-free. Artifact concentrations are high, however, and have the advantage of being contained in a restricted area, where post depositional disturbance can be seen to be minimal. The contents of these dwellings make excellent units of comparison and provide a good test for the Brennan proposition.

Other features include hearths, steaming pits or trenches, and specialized manufacturing areas, such as chipping areas. Only one site has a human burial component, a multiple interment dating to late Archaic times.

Many sites are badly eroded through a combination of rising sea levels against a submerging coast. The pattern of site utilization is clear, however; the features, especially the houses, are concentrated towards the rear of the site, while the generalized midden dumping area is along the beach. In the dumping area, so-called because it contains little but shells and discarded artifacts and food bones, the deposits may be 1 meter and more in thickness. As many excavators can attest, the artifact yield in these piles is seldom high.

Samples for radiocarbon analysis were collected and a number submitted to various laboratories. The dates utilized in this paper were generated by the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and the Smithsonian Institution (SI). The original intent behind the selection of radiocarbon samples was to date hearths and other features for cultural-historical purposes; there was no real concern for establishing the temporal relationships between the shells in the dumping area and artifacts in features. A search of the date lists revealed some that can serve to test Brennan's proposition. The samples came from the McAleenan site (BhDr-1) and the Minister's Island site (BgDs-10).

The ability of marine shell samples to reproduce 14C dates based on charcoal has been questioned by Mangerud (1972) who has identified potential problems and sources of contamination unless precautions are taken. Late Pleistocene dates on seaweed and shells from coastal Maine localities seem to agree in an acceptable fashion and Stuiver and Borns (1975) feel that no corrections are required. As a test of the reliability of more recent shells, a "mess" of clams was dug, eaten, and the shells sent to the Smithsonian Institute for a 14C analysis. The shells dated absolutely modern (SI-2498), suggesting that there is no need for a correction factor when interpreting comparatively recent shell dates from eastern Maine and western New Brunswick.

The McAleenan site produced two 14C dates, one on charcoal and one on associated Mya shells: 680 ± 160 (GSC- 13 ̂-charcoal; and 500 ± 130 (GSC-1292)-Mya. Because the tolerance ranges on these two dates overlap at the 1 sigma level we can conclude that the dates are not different.

The Minister's Island site has more 14C dates: 580 ± 120 (GSC-loSOVcharcoal, from a dwelling depression; 900 ± 180 (GSC-loSD-charcoal, from a stratum above a late Archaic burial pit, and 1060 ± 140 (GSC-1674)-charcoal from a dwelling depression. Two Mya dates were obtained from dense shell midden deposits (dumping area) at the front of the site: 410 ± 130 (GSC-1542)-Mya shell from a depth of 15-20 cm below surface; and 650 ± 130 (GSC-1445)-Mya shells from a depth of 35^10 cm below surface and directly below GSC-1542. The Minister's Island dates overlap within 1 sigma with the exception of GSC-1674 - a house fill charcoal date- which is clearly older than the two Mya dates. Date GSC-1580 (another dwelling sample) at 580 ± 120 falls in the Mya date ranges of 410 ± 130 and 650 ± 130, and so should be considered contemporary.

In summary, using the 1 sigma tolerance ranges, the shell-based dates cannot be considered different from those derived from charcoal. We would have to conclude that the conditions of Brennan's proposition are not met. The people who lived in the excavated dwelling depressions probably did gather and deposit the shells while they were living on the site. This particular test is not intended to refute Brennan's claim for the Hudson Valley shell middens; however, it does raise some issues to be discussed in the following section.

Discussion

The investigation of shell middens assumes greater importance with the increased interest in the archaeology of marine-adapted cultures. Unfortunately, research designs and theoretical premises implicit in much of the shell midden research to date have been inadequate to recover and interpret many



40 VOLUME 9, 1981

of the data contained in the sites. Some of the problems prominent in northeast shell midden archaeology are:

1. Failure to understand and interpret the factors responsible for shell midden accumulation; 2. Failure to construct an adequate research design, leading to skewed results; 3. Failure to recognize the post depositional problems in the coarse shell midden matrix; 4. Failure to recognize the taphonomic problems involved in shell matrix decomposition.

Brennan's point that the contextural relationships may be more apparent than culturally accurate is well-taken. Shell middens are unlike many eastern sites in that they are built up by cultural activities and contain limited evidence for natural deposition. This contrasts sharply with many riverine sites where alluvial soils provide the matrix for artifacts and features. Maine shell middens do not contain discrete and easily-followed strata that run from one end of the site to the other. Rather, the profiles reveal a confusing array of shell lenses dipping at various angles and seldom continuing for more than a few meters. There is some evidence to suggest the sites were built up by a succession of dumping episodes leading initially to discrete shell piles. With time and further accumulation the piles were levelled off, sometimes perhaps, deliberately. The fact is that we do not fully comprehend the process and at no site known to me has the research design been clearly aimed at reconstructing the depositional history. Until we know how all sections of the site were formed, we will not be in a position to accurately assess the relationships between artifacts and the shell strata over substantial stretches of site. For example, artifacts recovered from 50 cm below surface in one part of the site may not be contemporary with specimens at the same depth only 5 meters away. Recognition of this problem should be reflected in research designs. It will require some rethinking of sampling and excavation strategies, because an understanding of the depositional history is absolutely fundamental to any kind of interpretation based upon clusters of artifacts.

An unfortunate tendency in the archaeology of northeastern shell middens has been an excavation strategy aimed at digging the deepest deposits, which are usually the shell dumping areas. These areas often contain little else but shell with occasional broken artifacts and faunal remains. The dwellings, hearths, and other features are generally located nearer the rear of the sites. Clearly, a representative sample of the site area must be gathered if significant statements are to ensue from the research.

Ongoing research on the Maine coast has indicated shell content of nearly 100 percent by weight in some sections, while in others the content drops to below 5 percent by weight. In the strata featuring a high percentage of shells the particles are generally coarse and frequently whole valves are present. The opportunities for artifacts to move down through the coarse matrix are evident. At the Fernald Point site in the central Maine coast, historic nails are located deep in undisturbed deposits in direct association with prehistoric specimens (Sänger 1980).

Another post-depositional factor is the settling of matrix due to decomposition. This may be especially critical in middens comprising several shellfish species. Shell decomposition is a factor of species, condition of deposition, soil acidity, age, weathering, and perhaps other variables. For example, the common blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) shell rapidly disintegrates in Maine middens while the clams (Mya and Venus) are more resistant. Burned clam shell appears more fragile than unburned, but no controlled experimental data are available. There is the potential for differential decomposition within a column in addition to intrasite variation that can create very confusing concentrations of specimens, seemingly in direct association. The greasy, black layers to be seen at the base of many northeast shell middens represents decomposed organics, of which a certain percentage is probably shell. Again, results of empiric analyses are not available.

It is discouraging to realize that much of recent shell midden archaeology, including my own, is deficient in so many ways. Techniques worked out for non-shell matrix excavation and analysis are clearly inadequate without substantial modification. One of the most disturbing conclusions is that our traditional sampling techniques are suspect. Traditional strata cuts and randomly placed test pits will not, in all probability, give us a true picture of the cultural events represented by the shell midden site. That being the case, it suggests that rather substantial portions of sites will have to be excavated, with a concomitant escalation in research costs. Research aimed at evaluating various excavation procedures is in process and will lead to a detailed critique and set of recommendations.




The recognition of taphonomic factors in archaeology has important ramifications for shell midden research. The post depositional movements through the coarse shell matrix, combined with erratic shell decomposition may create a series of misleading associations. If one combines the taphonomic factors with the uncertainties of shell and artifact deposition the problems associated with shell midden archaeology become formidable and worthy of much more thought than has apparently been the custom.

Shell midden archaeology offers substantial rewards to anthropologists concerned with understanding the adaptation of man to marine resources. Moseley (1975) has reviewed the case for the importance of marine adaptations in the development of complex societies on the west coast of South America, while the ethnographic Northwest Coast cultures have long been known for their dependence on coastal marine resources. Still, there are many unanswered questions as we have only a rudimentary idea of the role played by maritime adaptations in much of the world. The answers to many of these questions are contained in shell middens.

In northeastern North America, where soil conditions do not favor organic preservation, culture historical units, such as phases, are frequently no more than temporal-spatial clusters of lithic and ceramic implements. Data on settlement, subsistence, seasonality, and skeletal biology, are lacking. Shell middens can combine component separation with an alkaline environment that could do much to "flesh out" the rather unsatisfactory record. We must, however, be prepared to comprehend the messages the middens are sending.

Conclusions

Brennan's (1977) article questioning the association of site matrix and artifacts highlights a serious problem in shell midden archaeology. It is not a problem exclusive to shell middens, but some thought suggests that it may be especially serious in the shell context. Brennan's "proposition" that the shells and the associated artifacts are noncontemporaneous seems to be untenable at the site level in at least two sites in Passamaquoddy Bay, where charcoal dates on features overlap with shell dates at the 1 sigma level. In a more general vein, there may be several serious problems inherent in the interpretation of shell middens. The potential for differential build-up of deposits due to the dumping of shells is apparent. Post deposition events in shell middens are largely unexplored and thus rarely considered in the excavation research design. Potentially most troublesome, by virtue of leaving little reconstructive evidence, are the downward movements of small objects and the differential settling of deposits due to shell decomposition.

It would seem that while caution and careful thought are necessary in the interpretations of shell middens they, as a general class of sites, offer tremendous advantages over many of the non shell sites in northeastern North America. The rapid accumulation of shells offers a degree of physical separation of assemblages infrequently seen at interior sites where many millenia may be compressed into a few cm. Even more important is the excellent preservation of organic remains afforded by the favorable environment found in shell middens. For those anthropologists concerned with cultural ecology and issues related to marine anthropology the shell midden is indeed a wondrous storehouse of information awaiting our skills to interpret.

Acknowledgements

The number of people that have influenced my thinking and provided supportive data for this paper are too many to list. I am especially grateful, however, to Dr. Robert Stuckenrath of the Smithsonian Institution Radiation Laboratories, and Dr. Douglas Grant of the Geological Survey of Canada Radiocar- bon Laboratory. Dr. Stuckenrath kindly read this paper seeking signs of abuse of the dates and methods of interpretation; he will not, however, be held accountable for errors.



42 VOLUME 9, 1981

References

Bonnichsen, Robson and David Sänger 1977 Integrating Faunal Analysis, Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 1:109-133.

Brennan, Louis A. 1977 The Midden is the Message, Archaeology of Eastern North America, 5:122-137.

Davis, Stephen A. 1974 The Teachers Cove Site, unpublished MA Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's.

Mangerud, Jan 1972 Radiocarbon Dating of Marine Shells, Including a Discussion of Apparent Age of Recent Shells from Norway,

Boreas, 1:143-172. Mathew, G. F.

1884 Discoveries at a Village of the Stone Age at Bocabec. Bulletin of the Natural History Society of New Brunswick, No. III.

Moseley, Michael E. 1975 The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization, Cummings.

Sänger, David 1971 Prehistory of Passamaquoddy Bay: A Summary. Bulletin of Maine Archaeological Society Vol. II, No. 2 pp.

14-19. 1976 The Earliest Settlements: 9000 B.C. to A.D. 1600, in Maine Forms of American Architecture, Deborah

Thompson, ed. pp. 3-14, Camden, Maine. 1979 Discovering Maine's Archaeological Heritage, Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta. 1980 Archaeological Salvage and Test Excavations, Fernald Point, Acadia National Park, Maine. Report to the

National Park Service. Available at the University of Maine, Orono, Maine. Department of Anthropology. Stuiver, M. and H. W. Borns, Jr.

1975 Late Quaternary Marine Invasion of Maine: Its Chronology and Associated Crustal Movement, Geological Society American Bulletin, 86:99-104.

PICK-UP TOOLS, FOOD, BONES AND INFERENCES ON LIFEWAY FUNCTION OF SHELL HEAP SITES ALONG THE LOWER HUDSON

L. A. Brennan

Introduction

The field research with which I have been largely concerned for the past three decades has been the archaeology of the aboriginal oyster shell dump campsites that line the east bank of Haverstraw Bay and the Tappan Zee, that is, the main estuarial reach of the Lower Hudson River. From the beginning of excavation in 1950 the objective has been to discover the function of these riparian loci in the lifeway of the hunter-gatherers who discarded the shell there and to infer from that function how the lifeway was scheduled, ordered and conducted throughout the subsistence year within the territory of band exploita- tion.

A model suggested by the placement, content and configuration of the shell-heap sites was arrived as some years ago (Brennan 1974); it is that the aboriginal residents of the band territories fronting on the river, and almost certainly neighbors from farther away, resorted to the riverbank during the late winter-early spring (roughly the month of March) for the upriver runs of anadromous fish (particularly the shad), the northering bird migrations, the early greening of vegetais on the sea-level shores and, of course, the gathering of oysters. The four foot tides break up the river ice quickly, opening up the water for oyster picking and bring into the estuary the warmer - at that season - sea water.

But the accumulation of evidence supporting the model, as environmentally persuasive as it is, is a



unscrambling messages in the midden

Documents