Volunteers & Archaeology

Volunteers and archaeology seem to go hand in hand. Many community archaeology programs in the province started with the assistance of local history/archaeology organizations run by volunteers or sometimes archaeology resulted in the formation of a volunteer history/archaeology organization.

Back when I was an undergraduate studying archaeology, my first archaeological experience was labeling and mending artifacts as a volunteer at the former Newfoundland Museum archaeology lab on Duckworth Street. I also volunteered for a program that is now called “From the Ground Up: Introduction to Archaeology” that is run by The Rooms Provincial Museum Division with volunteers teaching elementary age kids about archaeology. When I participated in the program, we taught the kids about archaeology by focusing on the Nulliak Cove site in northern Labrador. I taught that course so many times I think I could still give a basic lecture on that site off the top of my head! However, I loved every minute of volunteering with the children; you never knew what they were going to say or ask.

School Programs at The Rooms

Volunteers and volunteer organizations have played a huge role in many archaeology programs all over the province. Just as an example, the Big Droke Foundation has been heavily involved in the archaeology program and heritage preservation in general in Bird Cove for many years. Along with their role in archaeology and heritage, they also hold festivals, provide tours and operate the local interpretation centre that has a small gift shop.

Big Droke Foundation

In the same manner, the Colony of Avalon Foundation is heavily involved in the archaeology program and heritage preservation at Ferryland. They too provide tours and operate the local interpretation centre; they also have a gift shop which has replicas of artifacts found at Ferryland. The Colony of Avalon Foundation was incorporated in 1994 as a not-for-profit, charitable organization with a mandate to investigate, interpret, preserve and develop the archaeological remains of Lord Baltimore’s Colony of Avalon.

Colony of Avalon Foundation

Newfoundland Marine Archaeology Society began in 1972 as a group of like-minded divers with an interest in preserving the province’s past. This society, consisting mainly of volunteers, lasted until the mid to late 1980s. During their time, they found and excavated nearly 50 marine archaeology sites. Some of these significant sites are:

• H.M.S. Saphire (ChAe-01) (a 32 gun Royal Navy Frigate, lost in action with the French, September 11, 1696)
• H.M.S Tweed (CiAe-01) (an 18 gun sloop which sank on Nov 5th, 1813)
• the Isle aux Morts Shipwreck (CjBs-01) (a 17th C shipwreck from which 2 astrolabes have been recovered)
• Trinity Wreck Site 1 (DcAi-02) (a British Merchant vessel thought to be the Speedwell which was lost in ice in 1781 in Trinity Harbour)
• and several wrecks in the area of Conche & Crouse which include the wreck of a French warship the ‘Marguerite’, which was 200 tons with 20-22 cannons and was lost in action with the British in 1707.
  

  Newfoundland Marine Archaeology Society

  “The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Amateur Archaeologists (NLA³) was founded in January 1983. It arose out of a series of lectures given by Jane Sproull Thomson and Callum Thomson in the fall of 1982 at the YW-YMCA. The association was founded by a small group of people with a keen interest in archaeology, all of whom wanted to increase their knowledge of and exposure to the discipline.

  The founding six members first set out to write a constitution, to set up guidelines and aims and to arrange a series of lectures. All of this was accomplished in the first month.

  The aims of NLA³ are to develop good relations with professional archaeologists, to promote the study of archaeology through lectures, publications and tours, to establish a link with other associations across the country and to develop a “site watch” program in the province.” (Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1981)

  There is not a lot of information on this group and I don’t think they were around for very long but they seem to have had some interesting ideas such as “a site watch program to help with protection of sites in the province. Advisors were recruited from Cape Ray, on the southwest coast, Fleur de Lys on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Millertown on Red Indian Lake, and Fermeuse on the east coast of the Avalon Peninsula. Other recommendations are now being considered from other regions, including Labrador.” (Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1981)

The society also held regular meetings during which they showed archaeology and anthropology oriented films and held illustrated talks, the group also produced a regular newsletter. This volunteer society seems to have faded from existence in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

Many good things come from volunteers and volunteer societies. Last year a new marine archaeology society formed called the Shipwreck Preservation Society of Newfoundland & Labrador (SPSNL).

Shipwreck Preservation Society of Newfoundland & Labrador

The Mission of SPSNL is to advance the awareness, documentation and stewardship of shipwrecks throughout our province. Their objectives include:

• promote the study, documentation and appreciation of Newfoundland & Labrador shipwrecks, and training in the historical, archaeological and diving methods needed to achieve this goal;
• promote the preservation of provincial shipwrecks through diver education and wreck protection activities; and
• promote a public awareness of shipwrecks and the importance of our nautical heritage to the history of Newfoundland & Labrador, in partnership with local communities and cultural heritage organizations.

This is a new organization with good leadership and excellent goals. If you are interested in marine archaeology and preserving the shipwrecks of the province, you can join this organization. To quote the SPSNL website: “But the SPSNL does not welcome anyone who wants to remove artifacts illegally from shipwrecks!”

 Just recently, I was approached about helping to form a new public archaeology society to be called the Newfoundland and Labrador Archaeological Society (NLAS). We are in the very preliminary stages of formation right now. We have had just two meetings but 14-16 enthusiastic people showed up for both meetings. We have agreed on a name, are working on a mission statement, looking into funding and researching incorporation. If you are interested in being part of this society, you can contact me. In the coming months I will have more information on this blog about this volunteer organization.

If artifacts could talk…

In 2012, a school age child found a ground stone adze on the west side of Red Bay Harbour, contacted a member of the Provincial Archaeology Office, and turned in the artifact. By all accounts, the artifact is just a regular chipped and ground stone adze and is not culturally diagnostic. So it was not found in context and we don’t know who made it. Last week I was looking at the artifact and I was considering questions such as when was it made, who made it and who dropped it and I thought ‘If only you could talk’, we could learn so much. So I am left with a one sided conversation. I’m sure most archaeologists can relate to this scenario.

EkBc-68 Red Bay Adze

EkBc-68 Red Bay Adze from a different angle

I believe you were found down on the shoreline of the western shore of Red Bay Harbour near the locally known village of Tracy. Dr. Jim Tuck found other ground stone tools along a new road to Tracy in 1992 and thought they were Maritime Archaic. Unfortunately, the road destroyed parts of several small sites and pushed artifacts to the road edge. Were you part of one of those sites? Did the construction of the road push you down the hill? Did you see the Maritime Archaic who lived in the area?

Red Bay. The green dot is the adze spot find. Tracy is to the right of Moore Point. Cemetery is below the words ‘Red Bay’ on land to the east.

Were you in Red Bay at the same time as the Maritime Archaic Indian occupied site we refer to as Cemetery on the opposite side of Red Bay Harbour? The Maritime Archaic occupied Cemetery 7440+/-60 years ago. Were the people at Tracy and the people at the Cemetery site the same people just using different areas of Red Bay Harbour for different activities? Did you see them constructing their homes and other structures? The Maritime Archaic occupation at Cemetery is a little early for a ground stone industry. Indeed, most of the artifacts at Cemetery were made of red or white quartzite, a lithic material rarely associated with ground stone tools. I suspect the Cemetery site was already a thousand years old or more by the time you were made.

EkBc-03 Cemetery Maritime Archaic Indian quartz point

EkBc-03 Cemetery Maritime Archaic Indian quartz points

Artists rendition of the construction of a Maritime Archaic house (Artist unknown)

We’ll likely never know for sure who made you. Found in context we may have been able to assign you to a culture and time. Given your size my guess would be that you were not made by Archaic culture people; it’s more likely Palaeoeskimo or Recent Indian culture people made you.

If Palaeoeskimo culture people made you then you would be the only evidence of that culture found on the mainland around Red Bay Harbour as Saddle Island has the only Palaeoeskimo evidence found so far in Red Bay. So were you part of those Palaeoeskimo occupations? There is a Groswater Palaeoeskimo occupation on the west side of the Island in area F called the Mavco site, are you part of that culture? If I had to guess I’d say you were part of another Palaeoeskimo occupation on the island found in area M, a Dorset Palaeoeskimo occupation. There is so much basic information we don’t know about Dorset Palaeoeskimo culture, for example, we have little or no evidence for their boats. They possessed a marine oriented culture, relying heavily on seal hunting from the ice edge; common sense suggests they had to have boats. Did you see their boats, were you used to make boats? Were their boats like Inuit kayaks, did they also have larger boats like the Inuit umiak?

Dorset Palaeoeskimo hunter (Artist unknown)

It is a possibility that people of the Recent Indian culture made you. However, like the Palaeoeskimo, Saddle Island has the only Recent Indian evidence in Red Bay. Unlike in the Palaeoeskimo culture, ground stone tools are not common on Labrador Recent Indian sites, they are very rare on Newfoundland Recent Indian sites.

There is a large late Labrador Recent Indian site on the north-west corner of Saddle Island called Saddle Island West. The Recent Indian evidence here appears to be so late that these people may have interacted with the Basque whalers who came to Red Bay in the early 1500s. Were you here at that time? Did the people of the Recent Indian culture meet the Basque whalers? Or did the Recent Indian people come to Red Bay at the end of the whaling season to make use of lost and abandoned European tools and structures similar to what he Beothuk did on the island of Newfoundland at European fishing establishments?

Beothuk camp (Artist unknown)

Of course, the other possibility is you were buried this whole time, just used by the people who made you, dropped and covered by the ground and just recently came to light and potentially missed all this history?

This single artifact opens up these and so many other questions. A single artifact found in the context of an archaeological site can open a book of possible information. A single artifact recovered out of context leaves us with more questions than answers. If only artifacts could talk.

If you know who the artist is for any these drawings/painting, please let me know.

Fort York or York Fort, Labrador

Many things have changed in archaeology since I started in the discipline in the mid 1990s. Computers were used heavily when I started but now they have become almost as important as a good trowel. Other tools such as a GPS and a digital camera are as commonplace as a shovel and screen. When I started in archaeology, I took a course at Memorial University in which I learned how to use a manual camera for shooting slide and film photos. At that time, many archaeologists would use two cameras in the field, one for slides and one for black & white or colour shots. I still have hundreds of slides at home of my work on my thesis site. Unfortunately, slides and slide projectors are now artifacts. Archaeologists who have been in archaeology longer than me must have thousands of slides. We recently had several hundred slides at the office converted to digital files. There are some nice shots which, over time, I’ll likely share on this blog. Most of these slides have no provenience information in terms of who took them or when. Therefore, if you recognize who took these photos can you let us know so we can give proper credit to the photographer.

A few of the shots stood out to me because they are shots of sites that I wanted to write a blog post on but I had few or no shots of the site. One of those was Fort York or York Fort (FaAx-09), Labrador – I have seen the name written both ways. I have seen a shot or two of the fort before but the half dozen slides that showed the fort that we had scanned suggest to me that this fort is in great condition archaeologically speaking with minimal disturbance. We suspect the shots were taken either during a survey of southern Labrador done by Reginald Auger & Marianne Stopp in the mid to late 1980s or possibly Callum Thomson took them on one of his trips to Labrador.

Fort York or York Fort. (1988?) – scanned slide – source unknown

Fort York plan. (Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador)

The fort was supposedly built on the foundation of an earlier French fort called Fort Baie-Chateau in 1766 in Chateau Bay, Labrador. There is also some information about York being built over a block-house that was referred to as Fort Pitt. However, this is not confirmed. Fort York’s construction was commissioned by the Governor of Newfoundland Hugh Palliser in part to improve relations with the local Inuit population, to increase the British merchant presence and decrease the presence of illegal New England whalers and privateers in the area.

According to a Palliser letter the fort was supposed to be one of several ‘strong block-houses’ constructed along the Labrador coast to protect English interests. Palliser wrote:

“I have visited and examined York or Chaleaux Bay, with all its contained Harbours; And as This will always Be the principal Port on that Coast. If I am empower’d, I will undertake myself to see One of these Useful Block-Houses finish’d at that Place this year…” 

“I would propose to leave in these Block-Houses, either a Sea Officer with a Party of Seamen, or a Marine Officer with the like Number of Marines, belonging to the Stationed Ship (or a Detachment from the Garrison at St. John’s) such Officers and Men to be relieved Every Year.

“6 or 7 Men in each or at the Most 10 Men, Officer included. fully sufficient…

“Such Part of These Block-Houses, as are to be of Wood, may either be framed and prepared here, carried out, and Immediately set up there, or a proper Number of Workmen may be sent out in Each Frigate, and Build them with the Timber there, carrying such other Materials as may be wanted;…

“I would therefore recommend that One Block-House on the a fore-mentioned Plan, this Year, be first erected of Wood, at York Bay… “

 

Palliser’s discussion of a blockhouse does not seem to match the evidence of a star shaped fort with stone foundations seen in the photos of Fort York. So it seems likely there was a Fort Pitt ‘block-house’ but we are not sure if it was under Fort York or somewhere nearby.

An American privateer named Grimes captured the fort in 1778. In 1796, after several days of bombardment by French ships the fort was again taken, this time by the French Admiral Richery. The English soldiers are reputed to have made a gallant attempt at defending the  fort but finally were forced to retreat inland after destroying their stores.

Fort York from the air. – Scanned slide – source unknown

Fort York from the ground. One of the points of the fort can be seen on the left. – Scanned slide – source unknown

Part of a stone wall of the Fort. – Scanned slide – source unknown

The fort played a role in the life of a famous Inuit woman named Mikak. In 1767, she was captured with several other Inuit by English soldiers and brought to the fort. Mikak is a central figure in Labrador and Inuit history for several things including becoming an important Inuit trader, for learning English at the fort which helped her play a central role in helping establish the Moravian church in Labrador and for being one of the only Inuit to travel to and from Europe and not succumb to European diseases.

Painting of Mikak and her son Tukauk by John Russell in 1769.

No one has conducted formal excavations at the site. One archaeologist (Dr. Stopp) has visited the site a few times and on one of those trips provided measurements for the fort; ~100 feet wide from both east to west and north to south. We are aware of one person who collected artifacts from the site in the late 1960s. These artifacts were turned over to The Rooms, Provincial Museum in 2011.

Collected artifacts from Fort York – Iron nails and an unidentified piece of iron.

Collected artifacts from Fort York – Glass bottle neck & base

References

Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador Volume 2. Fort York.

 

Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/labradorfishery.html

 

Stopp, Marianne 2009 Eighteenth Century Labrador Inuit in England. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic62-1-45.pdf

 

Wikipedia – Mikak

Dots on Maps

I have been using ArcGIS in my day-to-day work now for about 10 years. It is an amazing piece of software that is capable of so much that even after 10 years of use I am constantly learning something new about it. Despite having used it to plot the archaeology sites in the province for the last 10 years I still occasionally, see something in the site plots that reminds me that these are more than just dots on maps. For example, 2 weeks ago I told you that I was preparing a lecture for a MUN archaeology class. In preparing for the lecture, which was about the Recent Indian Tradition of Newfoundland and Labrador, I produced the following maps for the Early and Late Newfoundland and Labrador Recent Indians.

Early Labrador Recent Indians sites

Late Labrador Recent Indians sites

Early Newfoundland Recent Indians sites

Late Newfoundland Recent Indians sites

For the most part, I think these maps are what you would expect from a group of people who practiced a generalized settlement subsistence economy. You can see use of various environments including coastal resources, interior resources and use the resources that are on exposed headlands, islands and the bottoms of sheltered bays. However, what intrigued me about these maps was on the Early Labrador Recent Indians map, or rather what was lacking on the map. It appears that they made little to no use of the interior.

Based on radio carbon dates it appears that the Early Labrador Recent Indians may be ancestral to the Early Newfoundland Recent Indians. Current dates suggest the Early Lab Recent Indians came into existence ~1900 BP and the Early Newfoundland Recent Indians came into existence slightly later around the same time ~1800 BP or even 1900 BP if we accept early dates from the sites of Cape Cove 2 & Cape Cove 3 (dates that were initially rejected by the excavators). If we don’t accept those dates the Early Newfoundland Recent Indians started ~1500 or 1600 BP.

 Therefore, we have a reasonably good idea of when they came into existence but I don’t think we know for sure where the Recent Indians came from. Several archaeologists have suggested that the Labrador Recent Indians are the result of an in situ evolution from some part of the Intermediate Indians. The Early Labrador Recent Indians map above seems to point to the same conclusion. If the Labrador Recent Indians were the result of a new group of people moving into the area after the demise of the Intermediate Indians, I would expect that some Early Labrador Recent Indians sites would be found to the west or possibly along the south coast. Of course, all of this could simply be the result of more survey work on the coast than in the interior. However, I would think that at least one Early Labrador Recent Indians site would have been found in the interior by now, if they existed there.

 Another gap I noticed is during the Dorset Palaeoeskimo period. I can’t take credit for this one, other archaeologists have pointed it out before. Nevertheless, when the sites are displayed in ArcGIS it is very interesting.

Early (Red circle), Middle (Yellow triangle) and Late (Green square) Dorset sites

Plotting Early, Middle and Late Dorset on a map shows a huge gap along the central coast of Labrador within the rectangle where there is more than 250 km of coastline (in a straight line). Why does this gap exist? Even when we add the other Dorset sites that are not recognized as Early, Middle and Late, the gap still exists. All we add are eight sites along the southern periphery of the rectangle.

All Dorset Palaeoeskimo sites

To explain this gap archaeologists theorize that precontact ‘Indian’ groups occupied this area. Those precontact ‘Indian’ groups would be late Intermediate Indians and Recent Indians in Labrador.

All Intermediate Indian and Recent Indian sites

Even when we plot all the Intermediate Indian and Recent Indian sites, the gap still appears to exist. Just 33 sites fill in the rectangle that takes up nearly 250km of coastline. Granted, a gap is not as evident as in the case of the Dorset sites but the gap is still there. The other side of the argument that ‘The Dorset avoided the area because there were precontact Indian groups there’ is that outside the rectangle the Dorset and precontact Indian sites are mixed with one another. Why would they just avoid that rectangle?

 There has to be something else that causes this gap. We cannot claim it is due to a lack of research in the area. A map of all known archaeology sites in the province fills in the gap with 289 sites.

All Archaeology sites

Can you see any other patterns or gaps? For more maps of archaeology sites in Newfoundland and Labrador, you can go here.

A Dorset parka inspired post

I have been very this week working on a lecture I am giving to an archaeology class at MUN next week. I had intended to write this post on some archaeology site maps I produced for my work. When I saw the post on the Elfshot blog about Tim’s intention to make a Dorset Palaeoeskimo parka. Along with the description of his project, he posted some nice shots of Dorset art. I had collected similar photos of other Dorset art last year that I was going to use in a future post but seeing what Tim was up to on Elfshot made me think that I may as well ride his coat tails, so to speak. (I voted for Tim to make the Beothuk bow, a project I think he should still do!)

The Dorset Palaeoeskimos were an Arctic adapted people who were first recognized archaeologically by anthropologist Diamond Jenness in the early 1920s at Cape Dorset, Hudson Bay. The Dorset are part of a larger cultural manifestation archaeologically known as the Arctic Small Tool Tradition. In Labrador the Dorset are subdivided into Early, Middle and Late phases and are archaeologically visible from ~2500 years ago to ~600 years ago. On the Island of Newfoundland they are confined to the Middle Dorset but are almost as long lasting dating from ~2500 years ago to ~800 years ago. Currently on the Island of Newfoundland, there are 255 known Dorset Palaeoeskimo sites and about 400 in Labrador.

Dorset art shows up occasionally at their archaeological sites throughout the entire Dorset period in the Arctic and in this province. Dorset art in Labrador tends to be more naturalistic and made from inorganic material while on the Island the art tends to be more stylistic and made from organic materials. For example, then graduate student Robert Anstey found the carvings below, which he interpreted as Polar Bear heads, on the Point Riche site near Port au Choix in 2010. Their function is uncertain although the little hole near the top (?) may indicate they were worn as charms, decorations for clothing or tools or maybe they were part of a necklace.

Dorset stylized Polar Bear head carvings from Point Riche. (Anstey)

Towards the end of the Dorset period, their material culture starts to go through some pretty drastic changes in Labrador. A warming climate (not a good thing for a cold weather, arctic adapted culture) and or the introduction of the Thule/Inuit and Norse (Europeans) into the traditional Dorset homeland are possible causes for the changes in the Dorset culture. While the exact cause of the changes are unknown, the changes were manifested in things like Dorset stone tools, which become much larger and a seeming increase in the quantity of Dorset art. In this province, 40 Late Dorset sites are known from northern Labrador, several of these sites have produced Late Dorset art. Perhaps the best-known art comes from Avayalik Island and Shuldham Island.

Aerial view of Avayalik 1 (Sutherland)

Shuldham Island 9, Saglek Bay. (J Sproull Thomson)

Wooden life sized mask

Part of a human face carved if soapstone

Part of a human face carved in soapstone

A human face carved into a ball of soapstone

Seated Dorset figure with typical high collared coat carved of soapstone

Human figure carved of soapstone

Seated Polar Bear carved of soapstone

All of these carvings are small as you can tell from the scale in several of the pictures. With the exception of the mask which is large enough to be worn by a person. There are carvings of Polar Bears, human beings, seashells, birds and a possible seal or walrus.

More Dorset art:

http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/archeo/paleoesq/pegh1eng.shtml

Newfoundland Mi’kmaq

The Mi’kmaq on the island of Newfoundland seem to be going through something of a cultural revival; more and more people are recognizing their ancestral roots and learning about their past. The Mi’kmaq are perhaps best known in the province of Nova Scotia, but they have a long history of occupation on the island of Newfoundland according to documentary and oral history evidence.

      “The earliest account of Mi’kmaq travel to Newfoundland dates from 1602. In the spring of that year, an English explorer named Bartholomew Gosnold encountered a Basque shallop manned by eight Indians somewhere off the New England coast. These Indians “…with a piece of Chalke described the Coast thereabouts, and could name Placentia of the New-found-land…” Gosnold does not identify the Indians, but it is likely that they were Mi’kmaqs, since no other mainland tribe (south of Labrador) lived so near to Newfoundland. If these Indians were not Mi’kmaqs, the argument for early Mi’kmaq knowledge of Newfoundland is in fact strengthened, since it is inconceivable that a more distant tribe would know of the island while the Mi’kmaqs remained in ignorance of it. A few years later, the great French explorer, Samuel de Champlain, observed that Indians from the mainland sometimes came over to the island to trade with European fishermen. In this instance, as well, the Indians in question were probably Mi’kmaqs, but cannot be identified as such with absolute confidence. However, in 1612, one Father Pierre Biard, a Jesuit missionary to the Mi’kmaqs, recorded that they had given the name “Presentic” to the island of Newfoundland. His account is the clearest indication yet found of Mi’kmaq familiarity with the island at the beginning of the 17th century” (Pastore 1978).

(Incidentally, Bartholomew Gosnold was instrumental in founding the Virginia Company of London, and Jamestown in colonial America. In 2003, archaeologists at Jamestown announced that they had uncovered a skeleton that they thought was Gosnold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Gosnold)

Mi’kmaq woman weaving baskets, ca. 1845
(Watercolour by Mary R. McKie. http://www.heritage.nf.ca/aboriginal/c_151329.html)

In 1989, Charles Martijn suggested that Cape Breton Island, southern Newfoundland, the Magdalen archipelago and the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were a single post-contact period territorial range for the eastern Canadian Mi’kmaq. While there is no definitive proof that this situation existed in the pre-contact period, the Mi’kmaq believe that they did inhabit the Island of Newfoundland at least before the 18^th century, referring to the early inhabitants as the Say’ewedjkik or Ancients (Martijn 1989:210-11 & Martijn 2003).

Mi’kmaq domain of islands as suggested by Martijn.

So, there is historic documentation and oral history evidence for the antiquity of the Mi’kmaq in Newfoundland, archaeologically, support for the historic and oral history evidence has yet to be found. Currently there are 21 known Mi’kmaq archaeology sites on the island. Most date to the early 19^th century and there are a few from the 20^th century. Despite several surveys on the south and west coasts of the island, earlier sites have not been found.

Red dots are known Mi’kmaq sites.

Two of the four surveys along the south and west coasts of the island were part of the work required for Masters Degrees, one was by Penney and the other was by Rast. Part of the express purpose for the Penney thesis was to look for Mi’kmaq sites. This thesis survey resulted in the discovery of 18 archaeology sites. Three of these sites had Mi’kmaq components, all were from the late historic period.

 The Rast thesis resulted in the discovery of 26 new archaeological sites and the revisit of 11 previously known sites, several of which were found by Penney. None of the sites found or relocated by Rast contained Mi’kmaq evidence.

 In 1993 and 1994, Penny carried out an archaeological survey of the south west coast of the island called the Katalisk Archaeological Survey. The survey had three objectives;

• to identify prehistoric and historic sites in Grand Codroy and Little Codroy river valleys;
• to instruct native post-secondary students in archaeological field survey methods; and,
• to raise community awareness of archaeology and Canada’s cultural heritage.
  

  The Katalisk survey area (Penney 1994).

  The Katalisk survey resulted in the discovery of 18 new archaeological sites, none of which were Mi’kmaq.

  According to Speck, in the early 1900s he found both Beothuk and Mi’kmaq historic material culture at Wigwam Point in Badger.

  

  A Mi’kmaq wigwam used by hunters and trappers early in the 20th century.
  From J. G. Millais, Newfoundland and its Untrodden Ways (London: Longmans, Green, 1907) facing 16.

  In 2011, the author visited a reported unmarked Mi’kmaq cemetery near Kippens that was given a Borden number. The cemetery reportedly contained just over 30 burials and was next to impossible to distinguish. This cemetery was known locally but it is not known who is buried there beyond that the people were Mi’kmaq. There was little to no physical trace of the burials. In several places, we walked over small undulations in the ground. According to a former Mi’kmaq Band chief in the area, the Mi’kmaq did not bury their dead very deep and the burials were actually the rises under our feet and not the typical dips of settled burials. Despite it being hard to distinguish the burials, we were certain we were in the right location because of information provided by several informants including that the cemetery was fenced in during the 1970s and 80s. We were able to find traces of the fence.

  

  Parts of the fence from the Mi’maq cemetery next to a steak we place in the ground.

  Burnt Knaps is perhaps the best-known Mi’kmaq archaeological site on the island. It is an interior caribou hunting site, that was occupied by Conne River Mi’kmaqs during the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the first Mi’kmaq site excavated in Newfoundland, and provides information concerning traditional dwellings, diet, and lifestyles.

  

  Showing the excavation at Burnt Knaps (Penney & Nicol 1984).

  Penney also conducted and archaeological survey of King George IV Lake:

  “A survey of the shorelines and hinterlands surrounding King George IV Lake resulted in discovery of two Mi’kmaq sites. A partial excavation of one site (DbBl-l) revealed two fireplace features (hearths) and associated stone and European (iron) artifacts. These features represent separate Recent Indian and Mi’kmaq occupations. Their temporal separation is uncertain, with the Mi’kmaq occupation dating to the first quarter of the 20th century. The Recent Indian feature possibly dates to the late prehistoric period.

  A second site (DbBl-2) is a collapsed tmoqta’wi’kn (or square wigwam) used by Mi’kmaq hunters from Bay St. George in the 1940′s. From limited testing, site function appears as butchering and salting moose in barrels during the winter months” (Penney 1987).

  Documentary and oral history evidence suggest the Mi’kmaq have been on the island for several centuries, perhaps going back to the precontact period. However, despite several archaeological surveys, the archaeological evidence does not support the documentary and oral history evidence. Obviously, further investigation is required to shed light on this matter.

References

Martijn, C. 1989  An Eastern Micmac Domain of Islands. In Actes Du Vingtiéme Congrés
des Algonquinistes, edited by W. Cowan, pp. 208-231. Carelton University,
Ottawa.

2003  Early Mi’kmaq Presence in Southern Newfoundland: An Ethnological Perspective, c.1500-1763. Newfoundland Studies, 19(1): 44-101.

Pastore, Ralph 1978 Newfoundland Micmacs: A History of their Traditional Life. Newfoundland Historical Society Pamphlet No. 4.

Penney, Gerald 1985  The Prehistory of the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland. MA, MUN.

1994  Preliminary Report Katalisk Archaeological Survey 1993. 

1995  Preliminary Report Katalisk Archaeological Survey 1994. 

Penney, Gerald & Heather Nicol 1984  Burnt Knaps: A Micmac Site in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 8(1): 57‑69, Ottawa.

Rast, Tim 1999  Investigating Palaeo-Eskimo and Indian Settlement Patterns Along a Submerging Coast at Burgeo, Newfoundland.  MA, MUN.

Boyd’s Cove, Inspector Island and the Beothuk

In 1980, the provincial government provided funding for a long-term project, the purpose of which was to increase our understanding of the Beothuk culture. To that end, an inventory of Beothuk sites was compiled, and brief archaeological surveys were carried out in the fall of 1980 in the Pilley’s Island area, the Badger Bay region, and the Fogo Island area. In the summer of 1981, the two co-investigators of the Beothuk Project, JaneSproull Thomson and Dr. Ralph Pastore carried out work at Red Indian Lake and in eastern Notre Dame Bay, respectively. This post will focus on the work of Dr. Pastore.

Sites found by Dr. Pastore during the Beothuk Project.

During the early survey work in 1980 & 1981, Dr. Pastore found more than 20 new archaeology sites. Four of the sites had Maritime Archaic Indian components, three had Groswater Palaeoeskimo components, 12 had Dorset Palaeoeskimo components, three had Recent Indian components, two had Beothuk components and six had European components. Most archaeology sites have more than one cultural occupation or component, which is why the number of components does not add up to the number of recognized sites.

The number of Beothuk – Recent Indian (the precontact ancestors of the Beothuk) sites found was low but the two sites that were found, Boyd’s Cove and Inspector Island, turned out to be very important for our understanding of the Recent Indian Tradition – Beothuk cultural continuum. Boyd’s Cove was the first dated Recent Indian Beaches complex occupation on the island at 960 +/- 50 BP (Beta 10235). At Inspector Island, a Recent Indian Little Passage occupation was dated at 610 +/- 60 BP (Beta 6730) to 690 +/- 40 BP (Beta 3938), placing this occupation between that of the Beaches complex and the historic Beothuk. The artifacts at Boyd’s Cove also exhibit this chronology. Beaches complex artifacts were generally found under Little Passage complex artifacts which were generally found under historic Beothuk artifacts. The sites provided the first stratigraphic evidence that the people of the precontact Little Passage complex were the direct ancestors of the Beothuk. The 1983 field season at Boyd’s Cove produced 14 stone projectile points and 4 triangular bifaces, all are typical of the Little Passage complex, either with or above historic material used by Beothuk. With these two sites, archaeologists were able to propose a Recent Indian Tradition to Beothuk cultural continuum that is now known to span 2000 years.

Boyd’s Cove is now a well-known site. Pastore tested & excavated it from 1981 through 1985 and it was eventually assigned Provincial Historic Site status on the basis of it’s historic significance. Boyd’s Cove, located on a 6 m high glacial moraine, turned out to be 3000 m². The site has eleven Beothuk house pits that varied from roughly circular, or multi-sided, to oval in shape. The house pits are, on average, about 6 m in diameter and were built by digging a shallow depression in the ground, erecting a wigwam type structure within that depression, covering it with bark, and then piling up the excavated earth around the edges. The result was a warm, watertight structure that could be lived in (with regular repair) for a number of years. The European artifacts found at the site suggest that the Beothuk occupied the site from about 1650 AD to 1720 AD.

Map of the Beothuk house pits at Boyd’s Cove.

Boyd’s Cove in 2012 showing some of the Beothuk house pits.

Many people are aware of Boyd’s Cove and its Beothuk occupation, the same is not true of Inspector Island. In 1982, test excavations at both sites resulted in the selection of Boyd’s Cove for investigation during the period 1983-85 based on its eleven Beothuk house pits and excellent organic preservation. With Dr. Pastore’s attention focused on Boyd’s Cove, Inspector Island was not revisited until 1986, when the site was examined during the course of a brief visit.

Inspector Island is a multi-component site with a Maritime Archaic occupation on the upper terraces as well as a probable Groswater occupation as indicated by two artifacts. The lower terraces contain a Little Passage occupation below a brief Beothuk occupation. This Little Passage – Beothuk occupation contains the remains of two house pits. Testing in the feature 1 house pit in 1982 revealed that it lacked cultural material. Since the feature is so close to the beach, Pastore speculated that its interior had been cleaned out by a high sea. Further work in 1986 confirmed that feature 1 was a house pit that was being eroded by wave action. Part of the work in 1986 was to construct a stone wall to protect the site from the on-going erosion.

Map of the 1986 site at Inspector Island. (Pastore 1987)

Stone wall constructed at Inspector Island by Pastore in 1986. (Pastore 1987)

Looking up the beach at the stone wall constructed by Pastore in 1986.

Inspector Island in 2009. Feature 1 house pit would be in the foreground near the brown patch of bushes. Feature 2 house pit would be behind feature 1. The upper terrace with the Maritime Archaic & Groswater material is to the left behind the cabin, which was not on the site in 1986.

Further, in 1986 a 1m x 50cm test pit dug in the second house pit, feature 2, revealed a greasy, black cultural layer containing calcined bone, fire-cracked rock, lead shot, iron fragments, 1 grey-green chert flake, and one grey-brown chert-thinning flake – all consistent with material recovered from Beothuk house pits at Boyd’s Cove. A total of 33m² was excavated during the 1986 field season. This work revealed more features including hold-down rocks for a temporary structure measuring almost 6m x 4m (feature 3), post moulds in the house pits, a midden and 2 hearths with charcoal that produced the 610 +/- 60 BP and 690 +/- 40 BP dates referred to above. This work showed that the Beothuk occupation of Inspector Island overlapped in time, 1650 AD to 1720 AD, with the Beothuk occupation of Boyd’s Cove and that the house pits were similar in construction to those at Boyd’s Cove. As well, the complete house pit feature 2 was discovered to be 6.5 m in diameter similar to house pits at Boyd’s Cove.

Testing on the upper terrace revealed a Maritime Archaic occupation including a number of woodworking tools and the edge of what appears to be a large hearth. Early Palaeoeskimo material (Groswater) was also found on the upper terrace.

House pit 2 excavated to the living floor. (Pastore 1987)

Lithics from the excavated embankment edge of the feature 1 house pit. (Pastore 1987)

Modified nails recovered from Inspector Island. They are very similar to nails recovered from Boyd’s Cove. (Pastore 1987)

Maritime Archaic material recovered from the upper terrace. (Pastore 1987)

Two Palaeoeskimo bifaces (left) and a Little Passage/Beothuk biface recovered from the upper terrace. (Pastore 1987)

References

www.heritage.nf.ca/aboriginal/beo_boydscove.html

Pastore, Ralph 1987    Excavations at Inspector Island, 1987: A Preliminary Report. 87.08