betts_blair_black_2012 perspectivism, mortuary symbolism, and human-shark

8/14/2019 Betts_blair_black_2012 Perspectivism, Mortuary Symbolism, And Human-shark

1/25

Animal remains and effigies are frequentlyfound in prehistoric mortuary contextsin northeastern North America, spanning

the Late Archaic (50003800 B.P.) through theLate Woodland (1500500 B.P.) periods. Themeaning of these animal remains has received lit-tle archaeological scrutiny. Where they have beenspecifically addressed, the analysis has tended to

be structural in nature (e.g., Greber and Ruhl2000; Holt 1996; see also Kelly 1993, in Holt1996), an approach that has been critiqued for fo-cusing on anomaly and metaphor and rejectinghistory and context (Wilkie and Inglis2007:1827). Recently, however, significant ad-vancements in the conceptualization of hunter-gatherer cosmologies have provided a new means

PERSPECTIVISM, MORTUARY SYMBOLISM, AND HUMAN-SHARKRELATIONSHIPS ON THE MARITIME PENINSULA

Matthew W. Betts, Susan E. Blair, and David W. Black

Shark teeth are commonly found in mortuary and ritual contexts throughout the Northeast. On the Maritime Peninsula,shark teeth have been identified in mortuary assemblages spanning the Late Archaic through to the Late Woodland periods(ca. 5000 B.P. to 950 B.P.). Beyond the Maritime Peninsula, shark teeth have been recovered from Woodland period con-texts ranging from Chesapeake Bay to the Ohio River. Amerindian perspectivism, or cosmological deixis, provides a frame-work for understanding the relationship between humans and animals in hunter-gatherer societies. To explore this relationship,we examine engagements between sharks and humans over a period of 5,000 years, within a socioeconomic perspective.We postulate that shark teeth in mortuary contexts were complex, entangled objects that were both mnemonics and instru-ments. All at the same time, shark teeth were (1) an emblem of a real creature with spectacular predatory abilities, (2) anicon of transformational and spiritual power, (3) a symbol of a societys maritime way of life, and (4) a tool a conduit through which a person could gain access to supernatural abilities. When shark teeth were exchanged, all of these prop-erties may have been transferred, suggesting that reinforcing relationships between societies conducting the exchange wasas important as gaining access to the supernatural powers of the teeth.

Les dents de requin sont couramment trouves dans des contextes funraires et rituels partout dans la rgion du Nord-est. Surla pninsule maritime, les dents de requin ont t identifies parmi des assemblages funraires datant de lArchaque rcent au Sylvicole tardif (ca. 4500 BP 950 BP). Ailleurs que sur la pninsule maritime, les dents de requins ont t rcupres surdes sites du Sylvicole partir de la baie de Chesapeake jusqu la rivire Ohio. Le perspectivisme amrindien ou, la deixiscosmologique, fournit un cadre danalyse pour la comprhension de la relation entre les humains et les animaux dans les soci-

ts chasseurs-cueilleurs. Nous avons cet effet emprunt une perspective socio-conomique pour examiner les modalits din-teraction entre les requins et les humains sur une priode de 3000 ans. Nous postulons que les dents de requin trouves encontexte funraire sont des objets complexes et enchevtrs qui constituent la fois des mnmoniques et des instruments, quirevtent plusieurs sens et qui servent plusieurs fins : (1) emblme dun animal rel, dun prdateur hors du commun dot dhabilets spectaculaires ; (2) icne du pouvoir spirituel et du pouvoir transformationnel ; (3) symbole dune socit adap-te un mode de vie maritime ; et, (4) outil redoutable un canal travers lequel une personne peut accder aux habiletssurnaturelles. Il semble que toutes ces proprits auraient t transfres chaque instance de troc ou dchange de dents derequin. Ceci suggre quil tait tout aussi important de renforcer les liens conomiques entre les socits que daccder aux

pouvoirs surnaturels des dents.

Matthew W. Betts Archaeology and History Division, Canadian Museum of Civilization, 100 Laurier St. Gatineau,Quebec, Canada, K1A OM8 ([email protected]).David W. Black Department of Anthropology, University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NewBrunswick, Canada E3B 5A3 ([email protected])

Susan E. Blair Department of Anthropology, University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NewBrunswick, Canada E3B 5A3 ([email protected])

American Antiquity 77(4), 2012, pp. 621645Copyright 2012 by the Society for American Archaeology

621

Deliveredbyhttp://saa.metapress.com

S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )

I P A d d r e s s : 2

0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1

W e d n e s d a y , O

c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


2/25

622 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4, 2012

to address complex human-animal relationshipsas expressed in ritual contexts.

When humans adorn their bodies with animalparts, they are overtly signalling their relation-ships with animals and, more generally, the nat-

ural world. This paper seeks to develop a meansto reconstruct these relationships from the ar-chaeological record, and, additionally, to under-stand what relationships are being transferredwhen ritually charged animal products are trans-ported or exchanged over long distances. To un-derstand the nature of ancient human-animal con-nections that are expressed in mortuary ritual, weadopt an approach that is grounded in defining thebroad economic, technological, and ideological

contexts of real interactions between humans andanimals, within a deeply historical perspective.Using this method, we believe it is possible tobuild an understanding of the complex and lay-ered meanings associated with mortuary and rit-ual-related animal remains.

A suite of teeth and toothed elements(mandibles, maxillae, premaxillae) are known tooccur in Late Archaic and Woodland ceremonialcontexts in the Atlantic provinces and states (e.g.,Bourque 1995; Burns 1971; Byers 1979; Ford1976; Kraft 1976; Snow 2009; Stewart 1982;Tuck 1994; Turnbull 1976; Yesner 1994). In manycontexts, the abundance of these objects may bea consequence of preservation issues, becauseenamel preserves better than bone. However, insites with good organic preservation, teeth,mandibles, and skull parts are most often found inmortuary and ceremonial contexts (e.g., Byers1979; Jelsma 2006; Stewart 1982; Tuck 1994).Outside the Atlantic Provinces and New Englandstates, teeth and toothed elements are also promi-nent among animal remains included in Woodlandperiod burial assemblages (e.g., Carr and Case2005:359; Dancey 2005:114; Ritchie 1944:149,165, 1965:218254).

In this study we consider the archaeologicaloccurrence and distribution of shark teeth in theNortheast. Occurring both as extant (unfossilized)and fossilized remains, shark teeth have been dis-covered in ceremonial contexts ranging from

Nova Scotia to Illinois and from Newfoundland toMaryland. While the importance of shark teeth foridentifying the extent of exchange networks andmortuary complexes such as Adena and Hopewell

is well documented (e.g., Ritchie 1965:218 254;Stewart 1994:85; Wright 1994:65, 1999:679), thesignificance of the shark and the motivations forplacing their teeth in ritual and mortuary con-texts is poorly understood.

Our research explores ancient relationshipsbetween humans and sharks through a suite of rit-ual and mortuary assemblages spanning the LateArchaic to Late Woodland periods on the Mar-itime Peninsula, an area encompassing Maineand the Canadian Maritime Provinces (Figure 1).We apply the concept of cosmological deixis, orperspectivism (Viveiros de Castro 1998), to thestudy of mortuary symbolism among ancienthunting and gathering groups. Specifically, in this

study, we (1) document the distribution of sharkteeth in ritual deposits on the Maritime Peninsulaand throughout the Northeast; (2) explore the na-ture of physical engagements between ancientpeople and sharks and investigate how these in-teractions may have changed through time; (3)employ these engagements as a framework withinwhich to explore the spiritual relationships be-tween sharks and people in the past; and (4) con-sider what aspects of these relationships mayhave been co-opted through mechanisms of ma-terial and ideological exchange.

Theoretical and MethodologicalConsiderations

An intimate human-animal relationship is one of the most prominent tenets of hunter-gathererideology (Bird-David 1990; Brightman 1993).Douglas (1990:36; see also Douglas 1966; Tam-biah 1969) proposed that animals are signi-fied in human societies by a process of anthropomorphization affording animals char-acteristics similar to humans themselves, espe-cially regarding their relationships to the envi-ronment and to each other. As Douglas (1990:35)points out, this concept was first articulated inRadcliffe-Browns (1952:130) theory of totemism. He argued that humans imagine nat-ural phenomenon as a system ... essentially sim-ilar to the relations that they have built up in their

social structure between one human being andanother. Soon after, Levi-Strauss (1962:222)suggested that traditional conceptualizations of animals were essentially a projected mirror


S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


3/25

of the human world (see Mullin 1999, 2002). Putsimply, these concepts suggest that by signifyinganimals in ritual contexts, people are signifyingsomething about themselves (e.g., Busatta 2008;Fowler 2004; Mullin 2002).

Often, this approach leads to a semiotic/struc-turalist analysis that views animal symbolismthrough the lenses of anomaly (how symbolic an-imals are intrinsically different from non-sym-bolic animals) and metaphor (how animal be-haviors or traits reflect human behaviors andsocial systems). Zooarchaeologists have been at-tracted to the latter in particular because archae-ological recordkeeping generally emphasizes di-chotomous contexts of animal disposition (e.g.,ceremonial versus domestic contexts; utilized ver-sus non-utilized species) that are amenable to

structural analyses.For example, in an explicitly structuralist

analysis, Holt (1996) compared species repre-sentation in mortuary contexts to those from do-

mestic contexts in Mississippian and Late Wood-land deposits in the American Bottom. Holt iden-tified groups of mystified animals as those thatwere repeatedly expressed in zoomorphic art butrarely found in domestic faunal assemblages. Sheused this patterning to develop a native taxon-omy for the period, but was unable to access theunderlying meanings behind this structure (Holt1996:104), partially because she was unwilling touse ethnographic analogy to assist in the devel-opment of the necessary metaphors (Holt1996:9194). As Holt recognized, the use of thestructural approach by archaeologists may com-pel unwarranted use of metaphor and analogy tomake sense out of symbolic animal remains. In-deed, such an animals are good to think (Levi-Strauss 1963:89) form of analysis has been cri-

tiqued because it tends to view animals entirely assymbols of the human condition, while denyingtheir real empirically existing relations with hu-mans (Wilkie and Inglis 2007:18).

Betts et al.] PERSPECTIVISM, MORTUARY SYMBOLISM, AND HUMAN-SHARK RELATIONSHIPS 623

QC

NL

NS

NB

PEI

ME

ON

MD

NH

VT

MA

RI

CT

NY

NJ

PA

400200100 3000

Kilometers

Minister's Island

CowPoint

Liverpool

Port Joli

Sherbrooke Lake

Moshier Island

Por t au Choix

Pointe-du-Buisson 4

LeVesconte Mound

Sandy HillWest River

Augus neMound

Turner Farm

Seaver Farm/Ti cut

Point Peninsula

Jack's Reef

Taylor Hill

Ritual/mortuary context with fossil shark teethRitual/mortuary context with extant shark teeth

Extant tooth in archaeological contextSite men ond in text

Extant tooth in possible ritual/mortuary context

NL

QC

Indian Island

Figure 1. The Maritime Peninsula (shaded dark gray) and adjacent areas, with sites referred to in the text.


S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


4/25

Viveiros de Castros (1998, 2004a) concept of Amerindian perspectivism (cosmological deixis)provides a novel point of departure for thinkingabout aboriginal relationships with animals (andeven natural objects and artifacts), which avoids

the problems of structuralism. Many aboriginalworldviews presuppose that all animals, and eveninanimate objects, have the potential for a spiritor soul. As Viveiros de Castro (1998:471) hasdocumented, many of these societies perceive thenatural world and its beings as sharing spiritualunity but a corporeal diversity. In effect, thismeans that all spiritual beings are internally iden-tical (they are all persons with a soul), and areonly differentiated by their physical or manifest

form (Viveiros de Castro 1998:471). It should benoted here that human and animal spirits are onlyconsidered identical in the sense that they areeach endowed with the same set of cognitive andvolitional capacities (Viveiros de Castro2004b:4), which is not to say that they share thesame spiritual or physical powers or capabilities(i.e., some souls or spirits are more potent thanothers). However, given that all souls are generi-cally similar, the fundamental difference betweenhumans, animals, and inanimate objects is theirmaterial form, or body (Viveiros de Castro1999:478, see also Conneller 2004:43). In such aworldview, bodies are viewed as a type of cos-tume composed of multiple components (Con-neller 2004:43; Viveiros de Castro 1998:471): inanimals these may be fur, scales, claws, and teeth;in humans they may be skin, hair, fingernails,garments, and tools. Because all souls are inher-ently similar, they have similar goals, feelings,and needs (Viveiros de Castro 2004b:6). How-ever, as Viveiros de Castro (1998:478) describes,each soul perceives the world, and seeks its ful-fillment in it, in a manner consistent with its phys-ical form. As such, each being animated by a soulis conceived as a unique subject with its own dis-tinct point of view.

While Amerindian perspectivism is based onethnographic observations of a broad suite of contemporary hunting and gathering populationsthroughout North and South America (Viveiros de

Castro 1998:471), it should not be viewed as auniversal ideological tenet applicable to allhunter-gather groups (past and present). Follow-ing Conneller (2004a:44), we instead view per-

spectivism as one of many possible interpreta-tions of ethnographic reality what Viveiros deCastro (2004b: 20) would term a transduction.We use this specific interpretation as a frame-work for exploring ideological relationships be-

tween hunter-gatherers and animals. However, aswill be discussed below, there is considerableethnographic evidence to suggest that a form of perspectivism did characterise human-animal re-lationships on the Maritime Peninsula.

As the name implies, cosmological deixis, orperspectivism, is a system for thinking about ani-mals and other natural phenomena. Deixis, a con-cept derived from semiotics, can be thought of asa reference or index that depends on context

(Hornborg 2006:317). An animals physical formforces an exclusive relationship with the world,different from all other animals and humans(Viveiros de Castro 1998:478). As a result, animalsand their parts are deictic , or mnemonics to an ex-clusive way of perceiving, acting, and living(Hornborg 2006:317). To hunter-gatherers, ani-mals may be good to think (Levi-Strauss 1963),but not because they always reflect the humancondition; rather, specific animals referenceunique ways of perceiving and interacting with the world they are indexical categories, cosmolog-ical deictics (Viveiros de Castro 1998:478).

Viveiros de Castros concept of deixis impliesthat the context of an animals interaction with theenvironment is paramount thus, an eagle in-habiting the shores of Lake Superior will have adifferent perspective than an eagle living on thecoasts of Newfoundland. As posited by Bird-David (1999:573 574), human perceptions of animals are not imposed , but rather discovered inthe course of observation and interaction in par-ticular environments. Here indigenous under-standings of spirituality are brought about by therelationship between people and the other beingsin their environment (Bird-David 1999:573). Ev-idence for this may be found in the fact that cos-mological deixis rarely applies to all animals.While many hunter-gatherer societies considerthat every natural phenomenon has the potentialfor a soul, this potential is not always achieved,

nor is each soul considered equally powerful. Infact, potency and ability is a matter of degree andcontext rather than an absolute (Viveiros de Cas-tro 2004a:470, 476). Animals more commonly



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


5/25

encountered by humans, typically apex predatorsand key prey species, are usually credited withspecial abilities and powers, and often have crit-ical mythological and ideological linkages to hu-mans (Viveiros de Castro 1998:471). Recent re-

search has documented the critical relationshipbetween detailed knowledge of animal behaviorsand the traditional mythology surrounding suchimportant creatures (e.g., Hornborg 2006:19).

Accepting that real relationships with animalsare critical to hunter-gatherers perceptions of those animals leads us to a practical method forlinking real-world animal behaviors and biology toancient human conceptualizations of animals. Thatis, because animal bodies are different from human

bodies, the only way for humans to conceptualizehow animals might perceive the world is throughobservation and interaction. Tracking, stalking,harvesting, and processing prey creates a detailedand unique appreciation for a prey animals meansof acting in the world (and, indeed, for the prod-ucts they provide). Likewise, monitoring, avoid-ing, competing with and hunting top-tier predatorsmay result in a sympathetic understanding of theirsingular perspectives. In fact, predators who ex-ploit the same prey and environmental niches ashunter-gatherers may sometimes even be consid-ered conspecifics closely related animals whoshare similar motivations, actions, and percep-tions as humans (Conneller 2004:43). Further-more, certain animals, such as bears, that sharesimilar body shapes and ways of moving with hu-mans, are frequently considered to be conspecifics(e.g., Martin 1978:3637, 117118).

The preceding discussion suggests a practicalway to link Viveiros de Castros concept of per-spectivism to animal remains from mortuary andritual contexts. By defining the recurring types of real engagements between people and these ani-mals, archaeologists may begin to understandhow ancient humans perceived the unique per-spectives of certain creatures and thus why theywere considered to be so special. In a response tocritiques of the structural approach to human-an-imal relationships, Douglas (1990) has proposeda similar method. She advocates paying minute

attention...to how animals interact with humansand to the interests humans pursue when theychase or eat or tame animals to control theimagination of the researcher (Douglas 1990:24,

35). Similarly, Reed (1988) suggests that humanconceptualizations of animals are in essence nat-ural, having evolved as a refinement of our per-ception of, and action in, the environment. Thissentiment is shared by Ingold (2000:10, after An-

derson 2000:116117), who argues that humansconceptualize a shared environment created bymutual interaction with animals in a substantivespace, a concept known as sentient ecology .

Essentially, these perspectives suggest that hu-mans acquire their perceptions of animals throughroutine engagements with these animals in sub-stantive spaces. As discussed by Wilkie and Inglis(2007:20; also Lfgren 1985), such a method canbe augmented to include a historical perspective

that documents a sequence of sentiments for andengagements with animals. This approach, calledhistorical-processualism by Pauketat (2001), orthe temporality of the landscape by Ingold (1993,2000), involves reconstructing the types of recur-ring human activities that may have brought peo-ple into contact with creatures, landscapes, and re-sources, as well as reconstructing the nature of thelandscapes, human groups, animals and resourcesthemselves. As suggested by Douglas (1990:24),the interests of humans, or the social and eco-nomic context of the observation and interactionwith animals, is also critical. Reconstructing the so-cioeconomic environment of engagements withanimals will permit an understanding of the soci-etal importance of the activities that led to human-animal contacts. Placing this universe of human ac-tivities within a historical framework allows us totrace lineages of practice that led to the incorpora-tion of animal parts in ritual contexts. The core of the historical-processual approach a careful re-construction of the sequence of historical and prox-imate human practices is critical because this al-lows us to examine the progression of meaningfulsocial and economic engagements that culminatedin the rituals whose material traces are observed inthe archaeological record.

We adopt a similar method in our analysis of shark remains from mortuary contexts in theNortheast. Conceptually, reconstructing the typesof human behaviors (and the social and economic

environment) that may have brought people intocontact with these important creatures, as well asthe nature and behavior of the animals them-selves, allows us to develop an understanding of



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


6/25

what sorts of animal-environment interactionswere meaningful to hunter-gatherers on the Mar-itime Peninsula. Following the concept of Amerindian perspectivism, we speculate aboutwhy the unique perspective of these animals was

so important that their teeth were worn on, orplaced with, human bodies. We attempt to histor-ically contextualize our analysis, by tracking therelationship of sharks to humans from the LateArchaic to Early Historic periods. Furthermore, if we adopt the theoretical position that all actionsdevelop because of specific historical contingen-cies (e.g., Pauketat 2001), the ethnohistoric recordthat describes traditional behavior can providepotent evidence of the unique history of human

interactions with the natural and cultural land-scape. In this case, ethnographic records mayprovide insights into human relationships withanimals and their body parts that are likely to berooted in Archaic and Woodland period interac-tions with these animals.

Ethnohistorical Evidence forWabanaki Perspectivism and Shamanism

While we recognize that reliance on the ethno-graphic and ethnohistoric records may be prob-lematic (Trigger 1978), our historical frameworknecessitates critical consideration of the ethno-graphic and ethnohistorical accounts of tradi-tional spirituality on the Maritime Peninsula. Herewe consult explorers and missionaries accountsof early historic Wabanaki, the traditional namefor the indigenous inhabitants of the MaritimePeninsula, including the Mikmaq, Wolastoqiyik,Peskotomuhkatiyik, Abenaki, and Penobscot. Asdescribed above, this record must embed clues toantecedent behaviors of the Archaic and Wood-land periods.

Hornborgs (2006, 2008) recent application of Viveiros de Castros concept of Amerindian per-spectivism to the subject of Mikmaq spiritualityprovides a useful vantage from which to considertraditional relationships between ancient animalsand humans on the Maritime Peninsula. Central toWabanaki cosmology was the concept of buoin

(also known as medeolin in the WolastoqiyikPeskotomuhkatiyik language). To the Wabanaki, buoin roughly translated as spiritual poweris the driving force behind all life. While all sub-

jects (animals, people, and inanimate objects) pos-sessed buoin , some had access to greater quanti-ties than others. These powerful beings were them-selves also called buoin , literally thepersonification of this spiritual force. Wabanaki

buoin have sometimes been called shamans (Hoff-man 1955:428; Johnson 1943; Lockerby 2004), aterm that applies if we define a shaman as an in-dividual who possesses the knowledge and spiri-tual power to act as an intermediary between hu-mans and the supernatural realm (after VanPool2009:180; cf. Hornborg 2006).

Buoin could harness the spiritual power nec-essary to access knowledge and realms of exis-tence denied to normal beings. This often in-

volved journeys to different worlds, usuallyfacilitated by transforming into an animal (e.g.,Hoffman 1955:429). Buoin could also take controlof an animal remotely; the animal could then bedirected to perform benevolent or malevolenttasks. As described by Hoffman (1955:429),buoin had unique and intimate relationships withthese animals, which were considered spiritualguardians or spirit helpers. So close was the re-lationship between a human and their spirit ani-mal that they were believed to be, essentially,two manifestations of the same being.

For the Wabanaki, the ability to communicatewith, control, and/or transform into these spirit an-imals was obtained through the use of a bone orrepresentation of the animal itself (Johnson1943:7072). These bones, called ntiemel by theMikmaq, were often concealed in a pouch ormedicine bundle and were a direct conduit to theanimal and its spiritual power (Hoffman1955:440442). Each ntiemel had a specific task.Some were powerful conduits through which atransformation could occur, or through which spir-itual power could be accessed (Hagar 1896:172);others seem to have been employed exclusively toassist in hunting (e.g., Rand 1894:357).

To return to the concept of Amerindian per-spectivism, when buoin sought to control or trans-form into animals, they were seeking to gain anew perspective, a new means of acting in andperceiving the world (Hornborg 2006:318). When

the Wabanaki used an animal body part as a cos-tume, adornment, grave good, or tool, they har-nessed its point of view and its unique way of in-teracting with the world. From this vantage,



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


7/25

animal bodies and their products become an as-semblage composed of... ways of perceiving andacting in the world (Conneller 2004:44). In short,animal parts used in clothing, costumes, jew-ellery, or tools are not fantasies but instruments

(Viveiros de Castro 1998:482).For the Wabanaki, the bond between these an-

imal objects and hunting success was critical(Hoffman 1955:449, 452). By gaining the per-spective of a predator, a hunter was able to repli-cate its techniques for capturing prey. Alterna-tively, to access the perspective of prey provideda critical advantage for a successful hunt. A re-vealing example of this relationship was docu-mented by Le Clercq (1910:215223), a mis-

sionary who lived among the Mikmaq duringthe seventeenth century. Le Clercq obtained themedicine bundle of a Mikmaw man that con-tained, among other objects, bones and/or repre-sentations of wolverines, birds, bears, beavers,and moose. Believing it was the property of theDevil, Le Clercq callously burned the bag and itscontents; thereafter, the Mikmaw man reportedmeager success in hunting, which he directly at-tributed to the loss of his medicine bundle.

In Wabanaki cosmology, animal parts wereboth a metonym for the animal and a tool to gainits spiritual power and perspective (Hornborg2006:325). As both a mnemonic device and an in-strument, animal parts were complex entities withentangled meanings. As a mnemonic, the animalpart could symbolize the animal itself, the spiri-tual alliance between the human and the animal,and/or the type of perspective shared betweenthe human and animal. As an instrument, it wasused to channel spiritual power and abilities fromanimal to human, and/or to gain the perspective ortalents necessary for successful hunting.

It is clear that Wabanaki spirituality incorpo-rated a complex ethnoecology based on detailedobservations of the environment in which theylived (Hornborg 2006, 2008). Mikmaq oral his-tories, especially those involving supernatural orspiritual matters, are replete with detailed obser-vations of animal behavior and biology (Hornborg2006:19). This strongly suggests that Wabanaki

engagements with animals were critical to thedevelopment of their particular cosmologicaldeixis; as Hornborg (2006:32) states: Mikmaqtales...deal with real landscapes and real ani-

mals lives; they do not make allegorical com-ments on human society... To switch perspectivebecomes a way of knowing the worldviews of other beings. Thus, Wabanaki spirituality didnot make distinctions between culture and na-

ture; Wabanaki shared the same environmentsand foods as animals, all of whom were consid-ered persons (Hornborg 2006:32). Their perspec-tivism was based on real-world engagements withanimals, whose behaviors and life histories theyunderstood intimately. Through this detailed ob-servation, Wabanaki gained an appreciation forthe varying perspectives of predators, prey, andother beings in the natural world. At the sametime, these ethnohistorically described beliefs

must be viewed as part of a cosmological traditionrooted in prehistoric Wabanaki belief systems.From this perspective, these beliefs might beviewed as an ancient spiritual convention, main-tained in the ethnohistorical present, but fun-damentally based in human-animal engagementsthat took place many centuries (or millennia) inthe past. Of course, this does not imply that thesebeliefs were not under constant transformationand renegotiation as Wabanki interacted with con-temporary creatures and landscapes.

Shark Remains in Mortuary and CeremonialContexts on the Maritime Peninsula

In the following section, we utilize a simplifiedchrono-cultural schema for presenting informa-tion on the temporal distribution and cultural as-sociations of shark-related mortuary and cere-monial evidence on the Maritime Peninsulaspecifically and the greater Northeast generally.Amalgamating previously developed chronolo-gies specific to the Maritime Peninsula (Black2002; Blair 2004a; Bourque 1994; Petersen andSanger 1991), and acknowledging overlap withother regional chronologies in the Northeast (e.g.,Burks 2005), we define these periods as: LateArchaic (50003600 B.P.), Terminal Archaic(40002700 B.P.), Early Woodland (31002000B.P.), Middle Woodland (22001300 B.P.), LateWoodland (1500500 B.P.), and Protohistoric

(550350 B.P.). Our schema incorporates tempo-ral overlap specifically to allow for the possibil-ity of phenomena ascribed to different cultural tra-ditions/complexes occurring concurrently. We



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


8/25

recognize that this schema is not consistent withall local and regional terminologies and chronolo-gies and we employ it as a heuristic device for thepresent study only.

Furthermore, we note that an abrupt shift in thearchaeological record on the Maritime Peninsula,ca. 3800 B.P., has been interpreted as evidence forcultural discontinuity, representing the decline of Late Archaic (Moorehead Phase) groups and theirreplacement by Terminal Archaic (SusquehannaTradition) peoples who migrated from a southernhomeland (e.g., Bourque 1994:2729, 2001:6264;Sanger 2006:241244). This is a complex issue(e.g., Robinson 1996:3841), and the efficacy of

diffusion, migration, and population replacementmodels cannot be reviewed comprehensively here.However, following previous researchers (Blair2004a, 2004b, 2010:38; Loring 1985:103106;

Magennis and Barbian 1996:98; Robinson1996:41; Sanger 1991:82), we adopt an approachthat views specific shared traits between Late Ar-chaic mortuary customs and those in later periodsas representing significant ideological continuity.

The earliest evidence of shark remains in an ar-chaeological context on the Maritime Peninsulacomes from the Late Archaic (Moorehead Phase)Cow Point cemetery (BlDn-2), near Grand Lake,New Brunswick (Figure 2). The site includes atleast 56 mortuary features (Sanger 1973, 1991), of which two were associated with shark teeth. Bonepreservation at the site was poor; only the enamelportion of the shark teeth has survived. In Locus

31, a single ochre-covered tooth from a greatwhite shark ( Carcharodon carcharias ; Table 1,Table 2) was recovered; allometry reveals that thelength of the individual shark was 3.84.0 m


Figure 2. Extant and fossilized shark teeth from archaeological contexts on the Maritime Peninsula: (a) ochre-stainedmako shark teeth from Cow Point (BlDn-2, note polish and blunted cusps); (b) ochre-stained great white shark toothfrom Cow Point (BlDn-2); (c, d) great white shark teeth from Ministers Island (BgDs-10, note polish on lingual surfaceof (d); (e) great white shark tooth from Port Joli (AlDf-24, note worn cusp); (f) great white shark tooth from GormanFarm (BjCj-1); (g) megalodon fossil shark tooth from Sherbrooke Lake (BeDd-1, note modifications to occlusal margin);(a-d, f) archaeology collection, Canadian Museum of Civilization; (e) reburied on site at request of local band;(g) Archaeology Collection, Nova Scotia Museum.


S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


9/25


T a b

l e 1 . T a x o n o m y a n

d C h a r a c t e r

i s t i c s o f

S h a r

k S p e c

i e s

R e f e r r e

d t o i n t h e

T e x

t .

F a m i

l y

S p e c

i e s

C o m m o n

N a m e

P r e y

T o o

t h S h a p e

H a b

i t a t

C a r c h a r o c l e s

m e g a

l o d o n

M e g a l o d o n

e x t i n c t ; u n k n o w n

v e r y

l a r g e , b

r o a d ,

t r i a n g u l a r , s

e r r a

t e d

e x t i n c t ; u n k n o w n

C a r c h a r o d o n

c a r c

h a r i a s

G r e a t

W h i t e

p o r p o

i s e ,

d o l p h i n , s e a l s ,

l a r g e

b o n e y

f i s h , s

e a

t u r t l e s , s e a b

i r d s

l a r g e , b r o a

d ,

t r i a n g u l a r , s

e r r a

t e d

t e m p e r a

t e w a t e r s o f

c o a s

t a l s h e l f

, n e a r o r a t

s u r f a c e ; s m a l l b a y s a n

d

h a r b o u r s , o

f f s h o r e

i s l a n d s

I s u r u s o x y r i n c h u s

S h o r

t f i n M a k o

s e a l s

, s w o r

d f i s h , t u n a ,

l a r g e

b o n e y

f i s h

l o n g , n a

r r o w , s

m o o

t h -

e d g e

d , w i t h r e

f l e x a t

t i p

t e m p e r a

t e w a t e r s o f

c o a s

t a l s h e l f

, n e a r o r a t

s u r f a c e ; s m a l l b a y s a n

d

h a r b o u r s , o

f f s h o r e

i s l a n d s

L a m n

i d a e

L a m n a n a s u s

P o r b e a g l e

s m a l l t o m e d

i u m s i z e

d

b o n e y

f i s h , s

q u i d

s h o r

t , n a r r o w , s

m o o

t h -

e d g e

d , w i t h b a s a

l

c u s p

l e t s

t e m p e r a

t e c o a s t a l

w a t e r s ; n e a r s h o r e a n

d

l i t t o r a

l i n s u m m e r ,

o f f s h o r e

i n w i n

t e r

A l o p i i d a e

A l o p i a s v o

l p i n u s

T h r e s

h e r

s m a l l b o n y

f i s h , s

q u i d

,

c r u s t a c e a n s

s h o r

t , s m a l

l , c u r v e d ,

a n d s m o o t

h - e d g e

d ,

w i t h o u t r e

f l e x a t

t i p

m i g r a

t o r y ; n e a r s h o r e

w a t e r s

i n s u m m e r , b

u t

p r e f e r p e

l a g i c w a t e r s


S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


10/25

(Steven Cumbaa, personal communication 1999).This tooth (Figure 2b) was associated with sixcelts and nine slate (argillite) bayonets. One of the bayonets (specimen 137) bears incised deco-ration composed of right obliques in triangles

(Sanger 1973:61), perhaps intended to signifyshark teeth (see discussion below). Nearby, inLocus 47, six ochre-stained lower teeth from ashortfin mako shark ( Isurus oxyrinchus ) were re-covered, again from a large shark (Figure 2a). Lo-cus 47 also contained two abrading stones. Thesingle cusp on each of these teeth has been wornaway, and a form of use polish is evident aroundthe labial, buccal, and occlusal surfaces. Radio-carbon assays on wood charcoal indicate the

cemetery was in use between 3980 74 (AA-22172; 13C = 25.0) B.P. and 3630 135 (SI 988; 13C = 25.0) B.P (Sanger 1991:75).

At the Ministers Island site (BgDs-10), onPassamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick, severalmortuary features were excavated that includedshark teeth (Sanger 1987). While bone preserva-tion was poor in these contexts, resulting in therecovery only of human teeth and a few smallfragments of bone, analysis indicates that at leastsix individuals were interred in four distinct fea-tures (Burns 1971:2). Two of these features, Lot1 and Lot 2, each contained a single great whiteshark tooth (Figure 2c, d). In both instances, theshark tooth was recovered in direct associationwith fragments of a human cranial vault and hu-man teeth. The human teeth recovered from Lot1 are likely from one individual, aged 1217years (Burns 1971:3), based on dental wear pat-terns. Lot 2 contained human skeletal materialfrom two individuals, one aged >25 years and theother 810 years (Burns 1971:5), based on pat-terns of dental attrition and the presence of de-ciduous dentition. The teeth from the younger in-dividual are deciduous and may represent a caseof curation. However, a deciduous molar fromthis individual was also associated with a devel-oping and erupting crown (found beneath it in di-rect association), indicating the mandible waspresent at deposition (Burns 1971:6). Thus, twointerments are represented.

The association of the shark teeth with humancrania suggests that they were worn around theneck (whether as part of a medicine bundle orpendant is uncertain). Their use as pendants can-

not be confirmed as the dentin portions of theteeth, through which holes or lashing grooveswould usually be made, have disintegrated. How-ever, both teeth are highly polished on their buc-cal and lingual margins (Figure 2c, d), suggesting

post-mortem modification perhaps a form of use-polish from being worn as pendants or trans-ported in a pouch. Both shark teeth have enamelheights of 2.73 mm, which corresponds with agreat white shark ca. 2.6 m in length (calculatedfrom formulae in Helfman et al. 1997:184; Ran-dall 1973:170), strongly suggesting the two teethare from the same individual.

As described by Turnbull (1976:59), the asso-ciated artifacts, which include rolled copper beads

and chipped and ground celts, are similar to arti-facts from the Augustine Mound. These similar-ities link the Ministers Island mortuary features toother Early Woodland (Adena/Middlesex) ritualsites on the Maritime Peninsula with connectionsto a greater Northeast ritual complex. A single ra-diocarbon assay on preserved grass matting pro-duced an age estimate (1930 100 B.P.; Beta

21263; 13C = 25.0) at the extreme recentend of the period in which these cultural influ-ences are present on the Maritime Peninsula.

At Port Joli, Nova Scotia, Betts (2008, 2009,2010) documented a modified great white sharktooth from midden deposits in Area A at the AlDf-24 site. The tooth (Figure 2e) was discovered inassociation with a formal rock-outlined mortuaryfeature including an adult human mandible and afragment of worked antler. While the feature wasnot fully exposed and all remains were reburied,analysis of detailed photographs of the mandibleindicate the individual was likely aged 3545years, based on dental wear patterns (Janet Young,personal communication 2011), An evaluation of the shark tooth prior to reburial revealed that thedentin of the tooth had been modified with sidenotches, although the base was subsequently bro-ken, leaving only remnants of the notches. Simi-lar modifications of shark teeth in prehistoricSouth American contexts have been interpreted asmodifications for suspension (e.g., Cione andBonomo 2003:225). As with the Ministers Island

specimens, significant wear and polish occurredon the occlusal and buccal margins of the Port Jolitooth, and the single cusp has been worn away.Allometric regression on the enamel height of



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


11/25

the tooth indicates it belonged to a shark greaterthan 2.3 m long. Wood charcoal from nearby de-posits at the same stratigraphic level as the toothreturned an age estimate of 1430 40 B.P. (Beta

256564; 13C = 23.5).

Isolated great white shark teeth have been re-covered from other shell midden deposits in NovaScotia and New Brunswick, including Bear River(BdDk-1; Erskine 1959, 1986), Cellars Cove(BdCx-1; Davis 1987; Erskine 1986; Rojo 1990),Reid (BdCx-5; Erskine 1986), Hosking (BeCs-5),Timber Island Brook (AlDf-14; Erskine 1962,1986), Quarry Island (BjCo-1; Smith and Win-temberg 1929), Gorman Farm (BjCj-1; Davis1973), and Bocabec (BgDr-25; Suttie 2011). Be-

cause of preservation, disturbance, and excavationissues, it is difficult to assign an unquestionablemortuary or ritual association to any of these con-texts, although it is important to note that theQuarry Island context contained scattered humanremains and Gorman Farm contained bifaces andchipped and ground implements consistent withEarly Woodland (Middlesex) ceremonial deposits.Bear River also contained two human interments,although the two recovered shark teeth have noprovenience information and were not describedby the excavator (Erskine 1986:26) as being partof the burial assemblages. Similarly, the Reid sitecontained multiple secondary human interments(possibly cremations), although again the exca-vator (Erskine 1986:6465) provides no directinformation on the association of the shark teethto the mortuary features. Interestingly, the Bo-cabec, Timber Island, and Gorman Farm sharkteeth exhibit wear on the occlusal and labial mar-gins consistent with the Cow Point, Port Joli, andMinisters Island teeth and the Bocabec specimenshows signs that these areas were intentionallyblunted through abrasion (Suttie 2011:4).

Several fossil megalodon ( Carcharodon mega-lodon ) shark teeth have also been recovered fromritual or cache-type deposits in Nova Scotia. Avery large megalodon tooth was recovered by acollector at Sherbrooke Lake in LunenburgCounty, Nova Scotia (BeDd-S1; Figure 2g). Thefossil was intentionally retouched around the oc-

clusal margin, perhaps to simulate the serrationsfound on unfossilized great white shark teeth.The associated artifact assemblage includespecked and ground celts, large bifaces, and

abraders consistent with an Early Woodland(Meadowood) cache (McEachen 1996:74).

At Liverpool, Nova Scotia, a collector dis-covered five fossil megalodon/great white sharkteeth in direct association with two stone gouges,

a ground slate point or bayonet (since stolen fromthe museum), and a large side-notched chert point.These teeth are unique because all were deliber-ately broken, with the root portions of the fossilsmissing. While no datable remains were recov-ered, the artifact styles indicate a Middle to LateArchaic (possibly Moorehead Phase) age. Sharkteeth do not occur in any of the fossil-bearing for-mations on the Maritime Peninsula, although theyare sometimes recovered offshore by fishermen

using scallop drags. This suggests that they werelocally inaccessible to prehistoric peoples on theMaritime Peninsula; instead, their source may bethe Calvert formation in Chesapeake Bay, thenearest land-based source of shark fossils on theAtlantic Seaboard (Steven Cumbaa, personalcommunication 2010).

Further south, a possible medicine bundle, dis-covered under a rock that formed part of a hearthfeature, was recovered from the Indian Islandsite, Maine (Snow 2009). As Snow (2009:7) de-scribes it:

The bundle consisted of a wrapping of birch-bark that contained 35 shark teeth, 6 rolledcopper beads, the deciduous dentition of ahuman child and a small amount of red ochre(hematite). One of the shark teeth was that of a man eater or white shark ( Carcharodon car-charias ). The remaining 34 shark teeth wereprobably from either a thresher ( Alopias volpi-

nus ) or a sharp-nosed mackerel [shortfinmako] shark ( Isurus oxyrinchus ).

Inspection of the photographs of the latter 34teeth by Betts indicates that they can only befrom a shortfin mako shark (Table 1). The largequantity of teeth might suggest access to an entireindividual, although we note that this number isless than half the total number of erupted teeth inan adult shortfin mako shark. Snow (2009:7)records that a radiocarbon assay from wood char-

coal recovered from the hearth yielded a normal-ized age estimate of 1650 115 B.P. (SI-790).At the Moshier Island shell midden site in

Casco Bay, Maine, the remains of 14 individuals



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


12/25

were encountered in a single feature of LateWoodland age, interpreted as the mass intermentof an extended family unit (Hamilton 1985:78).While complete descriptions of the associated ar-tifacts have not been published, shark teeth (taxon

unreported), shell beads, copper beads, and lithicswere recovered (Hamilton 1985:78; Yesner1994:157). There are two normalized radiocarbonassays from the feature: 970 70 B.P. (Beta-6408; Mya arenaria shell) and 970 145 B.P.(GX-7061; human bone collagen) (Petersen andSanger 1991:166).

It is necessary here to note that mortuary siteswith shark teeth also occur in Atlantic regionsboth north and south of the Maritime Peninsula.

The Maritime Archaic cemetery at Port au Choix,Newfoundland, included a great diversity of ani-mal remains associated with the burial contexts(Jelsma 2006; Tuck 1994). The skeleton of anadult female (Interment 9) was associated with 36teeth from a shark in the Lamna genus (porbeagleor salmon shark), as well as bear ( Ursus sp. ), mer-ganser ( Mergus sp. ), duck (Anatidae) and loon(Gavia sp. ) effigy pendants, a gull bill ( Larus sp. ),gannet wings ( Morus sp. ), quartz crystals, and astone resembling a claw or tooth (Tuck 1994:137).While this context has not been directly dated,other mortuary features in close association haveprovided normalized age estimates between 4290 110 B.P. (I 3788; wood charcoal) and 3690 90 B.P. (I 4682; wood charcoal) (Tuck 1994:163),indicating that these contexts at Port au Choix areroughly contemporaneous with the Late Archaiccemetery at Cow Point inNew Brunswick.

Four great white shark teeth were recoveredfrom an early Middle Woodland cemetery at the in-land Seaver Farm site in Bridgewater, Massachu-setts (Taylor 1970). The teeth, of which only theenamel has survived, were found in direct contactwith human teeth, again suggesting the shark teethwere placed or worn around the head. Taylor hassuggested that one of these shark teeth may havebeen used as an arrow point, an interpretationsometimes made of shark teeth in nonceremonialcontexts (e.g., Smith and Wintemberg 1929:26).However, given the mortuary and/or ceremonial as-

sociation of the majority of shark teeth in the studyarea, this function seems improbable.Two Late Woodland/Protohistoric burial con-

texts in Massachusetts also revealed shark teeth.

At the Taylor Hill site in Wellfleet, Massachusetts,a single mako shark tooth was found in a LateWoodland burial of an adult male (Torrey andBullen 1946). The shark tooth was directly asso-ciated with several deciduous human teeth,

though no other human remains of this age werefound, potentially indicating that the deciduousteeth were intentionally curated and not from theinterment of a juvenile individual. Artifacts foundin association with the burial include a hone orabrader, a small celt, and a small triangular chertprojectile point with a concave base. At the Titi-cut site in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, a Proto-historic burial (#15) was associated with numer-ous artifacts and a single unmodified great white

shark tooth (Robinson 1967). Burial 15 includedthe fragmented skeletal remains of a male aged3540 years, associated with many artifacts, in-cluding a pouch containing iron residue and aflint for making fire, an early historic Europeanclay pipe, four triangular chert projectile pointswith concave bases, three stemmed projectilepoints, and eight bone/antler awls (Robinson1967: Figure 6).

Excavations at the Sandy Hill site, on the Chop-tank River, Maryland, revealed a large Early Wood-land cemetery adjacent to a Late Woodland os-suary. Two large fossil megalodon shark teeth andone fossil great white or mako shark (genus Isurusor Cosmopolitodus ) tooth were discovered in as-sociation with poorly preserved human remainsand artifacts. Two of the fossil teeth are describedas burned, while the other was coated in red ochre.The spectacular array of artifacts recovered fromthe site includes large stemmed and leaf-shaped bi-faces, blocked-end tubular pipes (made from Indi-ana limestone, Ohio fireclay, and steatite), gor-gets, celts, and copper beads, all arguably related topan-regional Early Woodland (Adena) exchangeand ceremonialism (Ford 1976).

The Early Woodland West River mortuary site,located just across Chesapeake Bay from SandyHill, also contained fossil shark teeth (Ford 1976).The deposit is described as including a cremationpit and a reburial pit, dug for the sole purpose of redepositing the cremated remains with some sort

of burial ceremony (Ford 1976:65). Associatedwith these contexts were numerous artifacts in-cluding gorgets, blocked-end tubular pipes madefrom Indiana limestone and Ohio fire clay, large



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


13/25

lanceolate and stemmed bifaces, abraders, and var-ious other objects, which Ford (1976) linked topan-regional Early Woodland (Adena) ceremoni-alism. Among these artifacts were four fossil mega-lodon shark teeth found at the base of the rebur-

ial pit. Two of the fossils were unmodified; theother two had been intentionally broken and burned(Ford 1976:73). Both of these sites are within 25miles (40 km) of the Calvert formation (Ford1976:73), from which the fossil shark teeth foundin Nova Scotia were also likely acquired (StevenCumbaa, personal communication 2010). Nor-malized radiocarbon age estimates on wood char-coal from the reburial pit range between 1630 200 B.P. (M-148A) and 2130 100 B.P. (M-418B)

(Boyce and Frye 1986; Crane and Griffin 1958).

Interactions between Humans and Sharks inthe Late Archaic and Woodland Periods

The association of shark remains with so manymortuary and ceremonial assemblages on theMaritime Peninsula during the Late Archaicthrough to the Late Woodland periods suggests adeeply rooted symbolic relationship between hu-mans and sharks. The notion of cosmologicaldeixis provides a means to explain what sharksmeant, as an indexical category, to prehistorichumans. As discussed above, we can only beginto deconstruct this relationship by focusing on thereal-life repeated engagements between humansand sharks. These engagements were the nexuseswhere this symbolism was engendered wherehumans observed and interacted with sharks andcame to understand their unique perspectives.

The shark remains found in mortuary contextson the Maritime Peninsula belong to three closelyrelated species (one extinct) in the family Lam-nidae, as do all identifiable shark remains dis-cussed in this paper (Table 2). This is noteworthybecause 19 species of shark, spanning seven fam-ilies, are known to frequent the coasts of the Mar-itime Peninsula (Scott and Scott 1988). Why thisspecific family of large sharks was prioritized inritual and mortuary contexts is difficult to ascer-tain, but probably relates to their size and popu-

lation density, meaning they were both more vis-ible and more frequently encountered andobserved by ancient humans. Lamnid sharks aregenerally quite large, especially compared to other

species known to frequent North Atlantic waters(e.g., Scott and Scott 1988:1237). While otherspecies of large sharks in other families (e.g.,Carcharinidae) exhibit similar behaviors and preyon similar species as Lamnid sharks (such as the

blue shark, Prionance glauca ), they are relativelyrare in waters off the Maritime Peninsula (Scottand Scott 1988:2229).

Great white and mako sharks are warm seasonvisitors at these latitudes, and have been reportedin coastal waters as far north as Newfoundland.Makos occur with greater frequency than do greatwhite sharks, but the feeding habits of the twospecies are similar. Smaller, younger sharks feedon large boney fish, such as herring, cod, and

mackerel (Scott and Scott 1988:15), and areknown to pursue their prey into shallow water. To-day, human and shark encounters most often oc-cur during fishing forays, and large sharks havebeen caught in various types of fishing gear, in-cluding nets, rod and line, jigs, and weirs. Largersharks are known to feed on harbor seals, porpoiseand swordfish in Atlantic Canada (Campana etal. 2004, 2005; Mollomo 1998). In the Gulf of Maine, both large makos and great whites havebeen observed attacking swordfish that were har-pooned by fishers; in fact, the majority of greatwhite shark encounters in the Gulf of Maine occurduring swordfish hunting excursions (Mollomo1998:208). An excellent, if fictional, account of this sort of shark behavior is famously depicted inHemingways (1952) The Old Man and the Sea .

Makos and white sharks are known for theirspeed, aggressive behavior, and propensity tosteal on-line fish and damage gear (Scott andScott 1988:16). Both species are known to breachthe oceans surface in spectacular leaps, oftenduring the hunting of sea mammals and largefish. While many sharks fin (exposing their dor-sal fin above the waters surface), these speciesare so large that finning is a particularly conspic-uous aspect of their behavior. Although human at-tacks are rare, they are more commonly initiatedby lamnid sharks than by any other sharks inNorth Atlantic waters (Scott and Scott 1988:16).Biologists believe that attacks occur because large

sharks mistake swimming humans and small wa-tercraft for marine mammals or large fish.Archaeological evidence from sites such as

Turner Farm indicates that Late Archaic people



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


14/25

actively hunted fish species that are known preyof makos and great white sharks, including sword-fish and cod (e.g., Spiess and Lewis 2001). Dur-ing this period, an active boat-based inshore fish-ery is believed to have dominated coastal

subsistence activities (Spiess and Black 2004;Spiess and Lewis 2001; Spiess and Mosher 2006).Swordfish and cod are believed to have beentaken on open nearshore waters from canoes, asevidenced by faunal remains, bone and slate bay-onets, plummets, and wood-working tools (e.g.,Bourque 2001:5764; Spiess and Lewis 2001:149, 156). In particular, the presence of gouges inmany Late Archaic deposits has often been takenas evidence of the use of dugout canoes during

this period (Bourque 1995:91; Snow 1980:198).However, Sanger (2009a, 2009b) proposes thatbirchbark canoes may also have been used duringthe Late Archaic (and may have been more suitedto seagoing forays). Regardless of the boatingtechnology employed, it would have been onthese open-water excursions that Late Archaichunters encountered sharks. Interactions wereprobably similar to those experienced by modernfishers in Atlantic waters, who observe sharksfinning, breaching and hunting prey, and whoknow sharks as aggressive and dangerous com-petitors (e.g., Mollomo 1998:208211).

Evidence for sea mammal hunting in the LateArchaic is not well represented (Spiess 1992;Spiess and Black 2004; Spiess and Lewis 2001),although seals do occur in limited frequencies inshell midden contexts. If sealing was limited inthe Late Archaic, the majority of shark encountersprobably occurred during fishing activities, ratherthan sea mammal hunting. Given their low den-sities, and the paucity of shark teeth in Late Ar-chaic domestic contexts, it seems unlikely thatlamnid sharks were taken in significant quantitieseither as prey, bycatch, or beached carcasses, sim-ilar to modern times (Campana et al. 2004, 2005).Regardless, given that a single shark can havehundreds of erupted teeth, the rare encounter of abeached carcass, or killing of a live shark, mayhave been a significant source of shark teeth. Un-like the preceding Archaic period, open-water

swordfish hunting in the Woodland period is notwell-supported by available faunal or artifactualevidence (e.g., Black 1993, 2004; Spiess andLewis 2001). However, seal hunting, particularly

for grey seals ( Halichoerus grypus ) and harbourseals ( Phoca vitulina ) increased dramatically dur-ing the Woodland period. On balance, the avail-able evidence suggests that the majority of sealswere taken at rookeries and haulouts (e.g., Black

2003; Spiess 2003; Spiess and Lewis 2001), astrategy that appears to have increased substan-tially in the Late Woodland period (Bourque1995:221; Spiess and Lewis 2001:148). Ethno-historic evidence indicates that these hunts oftentook place at offshore islands or islets using boat-ing technology (e.g., Denys 1908:349). Inshorehook-and-line fishing from canoes is well evi-denced by the remains of demersal fish, such ascod, in many Woodland period shell-bearing sites

(Betts 2008, 2009; Black 1993, 2004; Spiess andLewis 2001). Evidence of fishing with the aid of weirs extends from the Late Archaic throughWoodland period (e.g., Dincauze and Decima2002; Johnson 1942; Petersen et al. 1994).

Whatever the procurement differences be-tween the Late Archaic and Woodland periods, itis likely that human hunters in both periods wereencountering sharks in their ocean habitat as thetwo species competed for similar marine re-sources. These encounters would have resulted inan intimate knowledge of shark behaviors and,thus, a deep appreciation of their unique per-spective. However, it is important to point outsome subtle potential differences in the nature of encounters between humans and sharks duringthese two periods. In the Late Archaic period,fishers may have had unique and extended contactwith sharks as they competed for (and, perhaps,fought over) swordfish, an exploitation strategynot archaeologically evident in Woodland periodtimes. Although details of the transition fromdugout boats to birchbark boats are unknown,and estimations for the timing of the introductionof birchbark canoes range from the Late Ar-chaic/Terminal Archaic to the Middle-Late Wood-land transition (Black 2004; Blair 2010; Bourque1995; Sanger 2009b; Spiess and Black 2004),this change in transportation technology musthave affected the nature of direct human contactswith sharks. Although evidence indicates that

even a sturdy wooden dory is vulnerable to a se-vere shark bite, dories usually survive the attacksof large sharks (Mollomo 1998:208209), anddugout canoes would likely be similarly resis-



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


15/25

tant. A birchbark vessel, however, would be morevulnerable to shark attacks; in fact, ethnohistori-cal accounts of Mikmaw sea voyages emphasizethis vulnerability. As de Paul (1886:29) states:

Another time that I started [from Tracadie,N.S.] on a mission to this same Cape [Breton]the Indians who conducted me in a canoe per-ceived three monstrous fish called marachesand they were frightened, as these fish are verydangerous. Their teeth are made like garden-ers knives for cutting and boring, or like razorsslightly bent [Table 1; probably a mako shark].They are extremely voracious, and often fol-low boats, attacking them with violence. Barkcanoes cannot resist them, they rend them openwith their teeth, so that they sink to the bot-tom, which is why the Indians have such a ter-ror of them.

Sanger (2009a, 2009b) has recently addressedthe issue of the use of dugout boating technologyand argues that the presence of gouges and wood-working paraphernalia alone provides slim evi-dence for the preferential use of dugout canoesduring the Late Archaic period. In fact, he positsthat birchbark canoes, given their weight and ma-noeuvrability, would have been a more adequatevessel for conducting inshore harpooning and jig-ging forays (Sanger 2009b:26, 29). If such is thecase, the propensity of sharks to imperil vessels aswell as hunters/fishers might have been tied up inhuman-shark spirituality from a very early period.

Signifying Sharks in the Late Archaic andWoodland Periods

A historical perspective presupposes that theethnographic record embeds clues to ancient be-lief systems. As discussed previously, for Wa-banaki buoin/medeolin , a shark ntiemel (animalpart) was both a mnemonic to a deictic category(the shark) and an instrument through which thebuoin could access the spiritual power and/or ac-quire knowledge and abilities to facilitate hunting.Viveiros de Castro (1998:478) indicates that ani-mal behaviors constitute a series of effects or

ways of being that constituted a habitus. If theethnographic record is applicable, when the an-cestors of the Wabanaki adorned themselves withshark teeth, they may have been attempting to

adopt the sharks habitus specifically to perceiveand act in the world as a shark does (e.g., Horn-borg 2006:43). What was it about shark behaviorthat made this desirable?

On the Maritime Peninsula, ancient human

encounters with sharks may have taken three pri-mary forms: (1) observation , of sharks breaching,finning, or hunting prey; (2) competition , assharks and humans actively sought the same preyat the same time; and (3) confrontation, as sharksand humans fought over prey, or as sharks at-tacked humans and their vessels. A fourth type of encounter likely occurred far less frequently, ashumans found deceased sharks washed up onshore. Such encounters are rare, even today (e.g.,

Mollomo 1998:212), but may have been a signif-icant source of shark teeth in the archaeologicalrecord, as well as detailed information about theirunique anatomies.

Repeated observations of sharks by hunter-gatherers would have resulted in a detailed knowl-edge of shark behavior. Great white and makosharks, among the fastest and most powerful fishin the ocean, with multiple rows of serrated teeth,and unique sensory organs unlike other fish, mayhave been perceived as beings of almost super-natural predatory skill. Exploiting the same preyand ecological niches as humans, but much moreefficiently, sharks may have been appreciated asthe embodiment of the effortless, deadly, marinehunter/fisher. From the vantage of cosmologicaldeixis, sharks would be considered conspecifics,beings with similar motivations and perspectivesas humans. This may have created a close spiri-tual connection between sharks and humans, bothsymbolically, as beings that shared the same per-spective on the marine environment, and practi-cally, as marine hunter-gatherers sought to gainthe unique predatory abilities of sharks. By usingshark teeth as ntiemel (objects of power) in med-icine bundles or as pendants, humans were bothsignifying their spiritual connection to sharks and attempting to adopt their habitus with the aim of gaining some of the sharks abilities.

We may consider related burial objects withinthis framework. The triangle or zig-zag motif on

Late Archaic bayonets, bone daggers, and fore-shafts (e.g., Byers 1979; Rowe 1940; Sanger1973, 1991, 2009b) have been suggested to rep-resent stylized rows of shark teeth (Keenlyside



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


16/25

1999:64). If these artifacts are, in fact, marinehunting weapons, or stylized versions of func-tional counterparts (e.g., Sanger 1973:51; Keenly-side 1999:63), Late Archaic hunters may havebeen making a direct link between the bayo-

net/dagger and the shark tooth. Given that theseobjects were each species primary means of dis-patching prey, and accepting that sharks and hu-mans were seen as conspecifics, this symbolic re-lationship would have been extremely significant.

A core tenet of shamanistic ritual is the conceptof transformation (e.g., Guenther 1999:426427),where the shaman can shift between realms of ex-istence (the land, the sea, the air), or change di-rectly into other animals or animal-human hy-

brids. Ethnohistorically, transformation into otherbeings or between realms of existence was centralto a Wabanaki buoin s (shamans) power, and it isclear that the bones of animal familiars(ntiemel ) were conduits through which this trans-formation took place (Johnson 1943:7072).Shamanistic paraphernalia has long been associ-ated with Early Woodland mortuary ceremonial-ism in the Northeast (see e.g., Brown 1997; Carrand Case 2005:91). The link between shamanismand Late Archaic cemeteries in the Northeast hasnot been studied in detail, but given its prevalenceamong later groups, this common hunter-gath-erer ideological system likely had its roots in theLate Archaic, if not earlier. Lamnid sharks, assome of the worlds fastest swimmers and as apexmarine predators, would naturally have becomeattractive targets for a shamans animal transfor-mation. However, it is the sharks propensity tobreach and fin that may have been even moremeaningful to shamanistic peoples. Breachingand finning sharks are the quintessence of a trans-formative animal: a liminal organism that canleave its marine realm and penetrate the surface in this case with spectacular and often terrifyingresults. Thus, during the Late Archaic and Wood-land periods, the shark tooth may have signifiedboth this transformative quality and its impor-tance in the spiritual life of maritime peoples,while providing a material conduit through whichsuch transformations could take place.

That said, even deeper meaning may be re-vealed by a consideration of the broad social andcultural context of human-shark interactions. As anindexical category (Viveiros de Castro 1998:478),

sharks represent a unique way of perceiving themarine world that was also shared by their human conspecifics that of an apex marine predator.And yet, while sharks maintain this perspective asa natural condition, it is achieved only by humans

adopting complex cultural and behavioral accou-trements. For maritime hunter-gatherers, open-water hunts represented critical cultural moments:the crucible in which technological, procurement,and dietary strategies were forged into an inte-grated way of life. Put another way, open-waterhunts involved people with state-of-the-art trans-portation and procurement technologies, employ-ing the most complex and intricate hunting strate-gies they could devise, pursuing animals with the

highest caloric returns, at the greatest risk of fail-ure and personal catastrophe. And it was in thesewatershed moments, when an entire socioeco-nomic system was being put to the test, that hu-mans engaged with sharks. As a cosmological de-ictic and a conspecific, sharks may haverepresented a fulcrum around which humans couldboth think about and signal their complex techno-logical, economic, logistical, and socioecologicalrelationships with the marine environment.

From this perspective, we may also explorethe significance of bone daggers and slate bayo-nets found in Moorehead Phase ritual deposits. If,as Sanger (2009b:11) suggests, bone daggers wereused to administer the coup de grace to a har-pooned swordfish or other aquatic creature, thenthey may have held powerful ideological conno-tations. In short, used at the ultimate climax of themarine hunting foray, these tools embodied thecritical moment of the maritime hunt and there-fore the marine way of life itself. The exquisitelycrafted and decorated slate bayonets found inMoorehead Phase cemeteries, which may be styl-ized non-utilitarian versions of bone daggers(Sanger 1991:77, 79, 2009b:11), may also havebeen imbued with a similar meaning. The form of these slate tools which mimics the shape of aswordfish rostrum (e.g., Bourque 1995:7, 238)provides a further entanglement with maritimeforaging and its social, economic, and environ-mental correlates.

Given that primary interactions with sharkslikely took place while on open-water fishing andhunting excursions, a gender- and/or age-centricattribution for shark symbolism might be sug-



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


17/25

gested. Specifically, ethnohistoric sources sug-gest that adult males might have been primaryparticipants in fishing and hunting excursions(e.g., Hoffman 1955:269271, 311), and thereforemight have a prioritized relationship to sharks.

However, the limited human skeletal evidenceavailable indicates that shark remains may cross-cut age and sex boundaries. While the skeletal ev-idence is far from conclusive, the association of children, men, and women with shark teeth rein-forces their potential meaning as emblems repre-senting an entire society, rather than a gendered oraged subset of that society. This further supportsthe concept that the marine way of life a pro-found identification with the sea was critical to

the identity of many ancestral Wabanaki and theirpredecessors.Finally, large lamnid sharks are beings of ex-

plosive power and terror, and prehistoric huntersand fishers undoubtedly witnessed attacks on wa-tercraft, competition for prey, and perhaps evendirect predation on humans. The importance of this perception of sharks is suggested by Mik-maw oral traditions, which emphasize their terri-fying attributes (de Paul 1886; Lockerby 2004;Martjin 1986). Indeed, adopting the sharks per-spective through the medium of a tooth, or per-haps exercising the ability to control the animalthrough the abilities of a buoin , may have pro-vided some sense of security when interactingwith these frightening creatures. It is possiblethat this perception of sharks may have intensifiedthrough time, with the presumed switch fromdugout canoes to birchbark canoes (Blair2010:4143), which are highly susceptible to at-tack from a large shark.

Transportation and Exchange ofShark Teeth in the Northeast

The earliest direct evidence for exchange in sharkteeth appears to be along the Atlantic Seaboardduring the Late Archaic period, as evidenced byfossil megalodon shark teeth from the CalvertFormation in a Late Archaic assemblage fromLiverpool, Nova Scotia (Figure 1). What might

have been the motivations for transporting/ex-changing these fossil teeth, if extant versions wereavailable? Except for size, megalodon teeth arestrikingly similar to those of the great white shark

(Table 1, Figure 2). We infer that the attributes of living sharks, especially great whites as cosmo-logical deictics were transferred to, and perhapsintensified, in these massive stone simulacra.

The next direct evidence for the transportation

of shark teeth occurs again in Nova Scotia, wherea large megalodon fossil tooth from the Chesa-peake Bay Calvert formation was discovered in anEarly Woodland (Meadowood Phase) cache as-semblage found near Sherbrooke Lake. Rein-forcing the link between megalodon and greatwhite sharks, this specimen was retouched aroundthe occlusal margin, possibly to simulate the ser-rations on an extant great white shark tooth. TheEarly Woodland period represents a time when

there is considerable evidence of the grafting of external customs and material culture on to lo-cal traditions in the Maritime Peninsula. It shouldbe noted that this appears to involve a series of pan-regional cultural phenomena, which resultedin a large number of local hybrid entities through-out the Northeast. In this light, the appearance of fossil shark teeth in Early Woodland ceremonialassemblages in Chesapeake Bay, near the sourceof the fossils, is particularly noteworthy.

While shark teeth from sources in ChesapeakeBay and the Gulf of Mexico are sometimes citedas components of interior Adena-related assem-blages (e.g., Brose 1994; Griffin 1967), our re-view of the literature revealed no credible reportof shark remains in a non-coastal Adena-relatedsite. The first evidence of interior-coastal trade of shark teeth appears to be down the St. LawrenceRiver trade route defined by Wright(1994:6566). Two fossil great white shark teeththat were found in Early Woodland deposits in thePointe-du-Buisson 4 site near Montreal may havecome from trade with Atlantic Canadian groups,who had access to Calvert formation fossils sinceArchaic times (Clermont and Chapdelaine1982:112; see also Wright 1994:66). While thestratigraphic association of these teeth is prob-lematic (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1982:110), itseems likely, given the evidence presented above,that they were associated with Meadowood Phaseceremonial material recovered at Point-du-Buis-

son 4 and the nearby Meadowood Phase cemeteryat Pointe-du-Buisson 5 (Clermont 1978).Further up the St. Lawrence drainage, near

Rice Lake Ontario, a perforated extant great white



S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r

i c a n

A r c

h a e o

l o g y - A m e r

i c a n

A n t

i q u i

t y a c c e s s

( 3 9 2 - 8

9 - 7 4 6 )


0 4 . 1

9 . 1 4

. 5 1


c t o b e r

3 1 , 2

0 1 2 2 : 1 0 : 1

3 P M


18/25


T a b l e

2 . S u m m a r y o f

M o r

t u a r y

/ R i t u a l

C o n

t e x t s

i n t h e

A t l a n t

i c P r o v

i n c e s a n

d N e w

E n g l a n

d ( a n d a d

j a c e n t s t a t e s

) W h e r e

S h a r

k T e e

t h

H a v e

B e e n

R e c o v e r e d

( N / A d e n o

t e s s e x a n

d a g e o f

h u m a n r e m a i n s a r e u n

d e t e r m

i n e d d u e

t o p o o r p r e s e r v a

t i o n ) .

S i t e N a m e

P r o v

i n c e o r

S t a t e

N u m

b e r o

f

S h a r

k T e e t h

S h a r

k S p e c

i e s

A g e o f

D e p o s i t

A g e a n

d S e x o f

A s s o c

i a t e d

H u m a n

R e m a i n s

A s s o c

i a t e d D i a g n o s

t i c

A r t i

f a c t s

S o u r c e

C o w

P o i n t

L o c u s

3 1

N e w

B r u n s w

i c k

1

G r e a t w

h i t e

C a .

4 0 0 0 B

. P . -

3 6 5 0 B

. P .

N / A

G r o u n

d c e

l t s

A r g

i l l i t e b a y o n e

t s

R e d o c

h r e

S a n g e r

( 1 9 7 3 )

betts_blair_black_2012 perspectivism, mortuary symbolism, and human-shark

Documents