The Beothuk, 2021 and Beyond a Recap of Past Research and Future Prospects

THE BEOTHUK, 2021 AND BEYOND A RECAP OF PAST RESEARCH AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

PREPARED BY: LAURIE MCLEAN FOR THE BEOTHUK INSTITUTE AUGUST, 2021

ABSTRACT

Newfoundland’s Beothuk people and their ancestors have a long legacy of contact with early European visitors to North America. Historical and archaeological research shows that this interaction was often unpredictable and sporadic. Not surprisingly, the Beothuk reaction to a massive European economic venture in Newfoundland, starting in the sixteenth century, was complex and non-linear. Continued research promises to add additional sub-plots to the main story line.

COVER PHOTO

Boom Island (DfAw-03), in the Exploits River near Grand Falls-Windsor. The grassy terrace in the island’s foreground is normally under 30 centimeters, or more, of water due to flooding caused by dam construction along the river. Ten archaeological features, mostly consisting of fire-cracked rocks and related artifacts, were identified on the terrace in 2015. One of the hearths was radiocarbon dated to 320 + 30 BP (CAL A.D. 1510-1616), representing a late Little Passage complex/early Beothuk presence. A Beothuk housepit located 100 meters behind the terrace is believed to postdate the latter area although excavation of the housepit and more of the terrace features may show contemporaneous usage.

CREDIT SHEET

The author is grateful to the Beothuk Institute, particularly Chairperson Peyton Barret, for making this research project possible. The activities consisted of the author reviewing archaeological site reports, research papers and theses, in addition to reading historical texts. Much of the written material was obtained online from the Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University. Stephen Hull, of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Provincial Archaeology Office, provided Archaeological Site Record Forms and site reports as the author requested them. Lori Temple, Collections Manager/Archaeology and Ethnology at the

Rooms, provided time on three days for the author to examine artifacts from South Coast archaeological sites and from Parkes Beach (DgBm-01) in the Bay of Islands. Thanks are extended to Penney Wells for offering the photo of artifacts disturbed by erosion at Aspen Island-2 (DfAw-05).

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH TO BEOTHUK HERITAGE...... 2

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA AND RELATED INFORMATION CONTRIBUTING TO WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT BEOTHUK CULTURE...... 22

ANTICIPATED RETURNS FROM FURTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INTO THE BEOTHUK ...... 51

CONCLUSIONS...... 67

TABLES...... 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 98

APPENDIX...... 111

LIST OF FIGURES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1 LOCATIONS OF BEACHES COMPLEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 4 2 LOCATIONS OF LITTLE PASSAGE COMPLEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 4 3 LOCATIONS OF BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 5 4 LOCATIONS OF MI’KMAQ ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 5 5 GASTALDI MAP OF TERRA NOVA (A.D. 1548) 7 6 MASON’S MAP OF NEWFOUNDLAND (A.D. 1621) 7 7 DISTRIBUTION OF SIXTEENTH-CENTURY EUROPEAN FISHING STATIONS 9 8 DISTRIBUTION OF SIXTEENTH-CENTURY EUROPEAN PLACE NAMES AND LITTLE 10 PASSAGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 9 CARTWRIGHT’S 1768 MAP OF NEWFOUNDLAND’S EXPLOITS VALLEY AND BAY 15 OF EXPLOITS 10 DISTRIBUTION OF BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS PER PERIOD 38 11 DISTRIBUTION OF SIGNIFICANT BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 52 11A IMPORTANT BEOTHUK SITES, NORTHEAST RED INDIAN LAKE 54 11B IMPORTANT BEOTHUK SITES IN NIMROD’S POOL, ON THE EXPLOITS RIVER 55 12 LOCATIONS OF HIGH POTENTIAL BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND 56 PROSPECTIVE SURVEY AREAS 13 BADGER BAY WATERSHED TO BE ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SURVEYED 64

LIST OF PLATES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1 OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE BEACHES SITE (DeAk-01), 1999 19 2 EXTANT PORTIONS OF INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) AND JUNE’S COVE (DeBd-03) 21 3 LITTLE PASSAGE PROJECTILE POINT FROM THE CHILDES SITE (DgBo-1), BAY OF 24 ISLANDS 4 BEOTHUK CHERT PROJECTILE POINTS FROM HOUSEPIT 6 AT THE BEACHES 24 (DeAk-01) 5 LITTLE PASSAGE/BEOTHUK STONE PROJECTILE POINTS FROM BOOM ISLAND 26 (DfAw-03) 6 TYPE 1A AND TYPE 2A IRON PROJECTILE POINTS FROM BOYD’S COVE (DiAp- 33 03) 7 TYPE 2C IRON PROJECTILE POINTS FROM THE EXPLOITS VALLEY 43 8 TYPE 3D IRON PROJECTILE POINTS FROM SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07) 44 9 TYPE 3D IRON PROJECTILE POINT FROM SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) 44 10 TYPE 4B IRON PROJECTILE POINT FROM SABBATH POINT 45 11 TYPE 4 PTOJECTILE POINT PREFORM FROM SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07) 45 12 FUR TRAP SIMILAR TO THOSE RECYCLED BY BEOTHUK 46 13 EXCAVATING THE ERODING FOUNDATION OF HOUSEPIT 2 AT THE BEACHES 58 SITE (DeAk-01) IN 2006 14 SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) HOUSEPIT 59 15 COPPER AMAK (SNOWSHOE NEEDLE) FOUND AT JUNE’S COVE (DeBd-03) IN 67 2016

LIST OF TABLES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF A RANDOM SAMPLE OF BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 76 2 INCIDENCE OF EROSION/DISTURBANCE/STABILITY AT A RANDOM SAMPLE OF 78 BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINING 80 BEOTHUK CULTURE 4 BEOTHUK RADIOCARBON DATES 85 5 LITTLE PASSAGE RADIOCARBON DATES 86 6A ERODING SITES AND UNIQUE FEATURES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE SALVAGE 89 EXCAVATIONS AND SUSTAINED MONITORING 6B BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL, MOSTLY NON-THREATENED, WITH HIGH 91 POTENTIAL FOR PRODUCING SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION THROUGH EXCAVATIONS 6C HIGH POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION 93 6D IMPORTANT BEOTHUK RESEARCH QUESTIONS, NOT SITE-SPECIFIC 94 7 DISTRIBUTION OF BEOTHUK IRON PROJECTILE POINTS 95 8 SOURCES OF PRIVATELY COLLECTED ARTIFACTS (REPORTED BY T.G.B. LLOYD, 97 1875) 9 LOCATIONS OF COBBLE/EARTH MOUNDS SUGGESTING POSSIBLY UNIDENTIFIED 97 BURIALS

INTRODUCTION

European migratory fishermen and subsequent settlers initially referred to Newfoundland’s resident First Nation population as Red Indians, Wild Indians, aborigines, or other title until 1827 when they became known as the Beothuk (Marshall 1996:434). The natives’ liberal use of red ocher to stain their skin as well as their hair, clothing, canoes, utensils, weapons, etc., was an impressive characteristic that led to the frequent reference to them as the Red Indians and this term continued to be used following the adoption of Beothuk as their group name (Ibid:384). Howley retained “Red Indian” in the title of his classic summary of historic information pertaining to the Beothuk which was published in 1915. Red

Indian is the recorded English translation of “Beothuk”, although considering that Demasduit used

“Beothuk” to refer to her group it may strictly translate to “people” or nation, taking on a similar connotation as Innu and Inuit do for their specific cultural entities (Hewson 1978:156).

Archaeological and historical research has determined that seven other First Nations, in addition to Beothuk, have lived for varying periods in Newfoundland. Six of these groups, including the Maritime

Archaic, Groswater, Dorset, Cow Head, Beaches and Little Passage, pre-date the Beothuk (Figures 1-3). In addition, a possible Palaeo-Indian biface fragment from Cape Freels potentially represents a pre-Maritime

Archaic population in Newfoundland (Site Record Form). The Little Passage period extends into the historic era and was eventually re-named Beothuk following changes to Little Passage settlement/subsistence patterns, architecture, tools and other material culture. These observed behavioral and material alterations to traditional Little Passage culture most likely resulted in modifications to religion and associated ideology, but these are more difficult to understand from historical and archaeological data. Innu and Inuit, representing people based in Labrador, visits to

Newfoundland are historically and archaeologically documented as occurring during the Little Passage-

Beothuk periods. A Mi’kmaq presence is similarly recorded since the contact period and continues today

(Figure 4).

This paper discusses our current understanding of the Beothuk people, showing how this perception has changed throughout the historic period and suggests where we can expect further insights.

Historical and archaeological information pertaining to the Beothuk, as well as Newfoundland’s other First

Nations to varying degrees, are incomplete, meaning that in most cases there is no last word concerning human behaviors and the motivations behind observable cultural attributes. While new data contribute to solving unanswered questions about Beothuk and other past cultures, fresh problems are often generated as well, perpetuating the need for further research. A list of Beothuk research questions is included in this discussion.

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH TO BEOTHUK HERITAGE

Everyone knows that North America was already home to humans when Europeans started coming here around 1000 A.D. Our understanding of these First Nations is based on their oral histories in association with recorded direct interviews, historical information, archaeological data and scientific information, including that derived from DNA studies. This combined information provides evidence for a long chronology of human occupation, starting at least 15,000 years before present times, following the end of the Ice Age 25,000 years ago (Fagan 1991:70). More than 1000 American First Nation languages and 574 tribes have been recorded. There are 634 First Nations/bands and 70 languages in Canada

(Wikipedia). The extinction of some First Nations often limits the amount of data pertaining to specific groups. The opportunity to interview members of such vanished people no longer exists and given their restricted historical span, the potential for prior in person discussions was much reduced as well.

Furthermore, there may be less recorded information pertaining to people with a troubled history and their archaeological record might be similarly compromised. Nonetheless, sustained historical and

archaeological research offer some of the best potential means of obtaining new sociocultural information for extinct First Nations.

Although some of the earliest European interactions with North American First Nations were historically recorded, detailed record keeping by objective, non-partisan observers was uncommon until the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries. For example, many of the early references to First Nations people do not clearly pinpoint the location of specific contact episodes nor do they explicitly indicate the identity of the indigenous group. Consequently, much of the early written record requires careful interpretation and additional historic data, along with archaeological and scientific information, are often needed to clarify the subject matter. For example, the Norse sagas tell of four exploratory expeditions from Norway and Norse colonies in Greenland to Newfoundland within a 10 year period starting just before A.D. 1000. These records describe various characteristics of North America’s northeast coast that still result in alleged discoveries of Viking artifacts and site locations that, except in one instance, have proven to be unfounded (McGhee 1991:46). Archaeological evidence of relatively brief Norse occupations was uncovered at L’Anse Aux Meadows, near Newfoundland’s northern tip (Ingstad 1977). These Norse traded with the resident population, who they referred to as Skraelings, and also fought with them which seems to have contributed to the Europeans abandoning their outpost at the entrance to Vinland. These scant historical data are unclear as to whether the Norse battled Labrador Pre-Inuit or ancestors of the

Beothuk living in Newfoundland and/or Labrador. The Sagas’ description of Native skin-covered boats and slings suggest the Norse adversaries were Palaeo-Inuit people although the close proximity of Recent

Indian/Ancestral Beothuk archaeological deposits to L’Anse aux Meadows lead some to conclude that the

Skraelings were the ancestors of the Beothuk (Marshall 1996:263).

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4: NEWFOUNDLAND MI’KMAQ SITES (PROVINCIAL ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE)

When a new wave of European explorers, led by Christopher Columbus, ventured into the

Caribbean 500 years later, they also recorded their brief encounter with the region’s in situ occupants, although as is also commonly known, these Europeans mistook their Caribbean landfall as India and incorrectly referred to the resident population as Indians (Fagan 1991:19). Five years after Columbus,

Zuan Caboto, otherwise known as John Cabot, landed the Matthew on Cape Breton Island, or

Newfoundland, and although he did not encounter local people during his visit, a number of Native implements were collected (Pope 1997:13). Ensuing European explorers, fishermen and colonists gradually became more familiar with North America’s eastern seaboard and its resident First Nations population through successive visits, but the corresponding historic record still requires careful reading to insure its historical and cultural significance are properly interpreted. Europeans interacted with First

Nation inhabitants in the New-Founde-Lande which stretched from the island now known as

Newfoundland southwards through Atlantic Canada to New England (McGhee 1991:90). Gaspar Corte

Real led a Portuguese expedition that captured 57 First Nations people in the Strait of Belle Isle in A.D.

1500, but it is unclear whether these people resided on the north shore (Labrador), the south shore

(Newfoundland), or both. It is also not apparent if these individuals were taken from a single community or were gathered from a number of locations, perhaps over an extended period (Howley 1915:4).

Early in the sixteenth century, European nations, primarily France, Spain, Portugal and the

Basques provinces, started harvesting codfish and other marine species from the New-founde-lande, which consisted of parts of Newfoundland, portions of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and adjoining parts of

North America’s eastern shoreline. The island of Newfoundland was not formerly recognized until more than 100 years later (Figures 5, 6). While many European migratory fishermen established fishing stations, also known as rooms, along portions of Newfoundland’s shoreline in close proximity to their fishing grounds along the island’s north, west and south coasts, there was little time for exploration of the adjoining shoreline or interior. Europeans’ initial economic interest in Newfoundland were its marine

Figure 5: Gastaldi map of Terra Nova, 1548.

Figure 6: John Mason's 1621 map of Newfoundland; north points downwards.

resources and they did not earnestly pursue a fur trade as occurred elsewhere along the northeastern seaboard. Consequently, early Europeans thought the Newfoundland coastline was a cluster of headlands that were parts of an archipelago of small islands rather than one land mass with an undulating 9,600 kilometer-long shoreline.

European fishing rooms, the shore-based component of their marine enterprises, were used to split, salt and dry codfish caught each day. These facilities often contained a wharf, tables and an appropriate beach, or crude frame, for drying fish. Work crews typically lived near these facilities (Pope

2000:133-135). Optimal fishing room locations provided good mooring for ships and safe landing for smaller boats used in daily fishing activities, along with close proximity to fishing grounds, accessible bait, wood for stages and flakes, open areas for drying fish and fresh water (Ibid:141). These criteria confined early European fishing rooms to small coastal regions which facilitated Beothuk avoiding the newcomers

(Ibid:139) (Figures 7, 8). Despite being effectively isolated from the majority of sixteenth century

European activities, Beothuk were able to observe the foreigners and also had access to any materials left behind when migratory fishermen returned home in the fall. Observant Beothuk would have noticed that the same fishermen did not always return to established fishing rooms in successive seasons, as the first boats to arrive from Europe in the spring could set up where they pleased. Fishermen re-occupying rooms scavenged whatever useful materials remained, reinforcing any Beothuk interest in the same behavior

(Pope 2000:137; 1993:288). A Beothuk site found at Ferryland, the only known Beothuk occupation east of the Avalon Isthmus, represents Beothuk scavenging from a sixteenth century fishing room (Gaulton

2001:12).

This relationship, or lack of relationship, was a key dynamic of the Beothuk period and is an important factor concerning potential future research projects (see below). The minimal amount of socio- economic cooperation that occurred between Beothuk and Europeans resulted in relatively few historic

Figure 7: European inshore fisheries in the northwestern Atlantic, 1500-1600 (from the Historic Atlas of Canada).

Figure 8: Sixteenth-century European fishing harbours and areas ( ), relative to Little Passage (including ancestral Beothuk and early Beothuk) sites in Newfoundland (see Figure 7).

observations of the Little Passage/Beothuk culture, but the available information is enhanced by combining it with archaeological and scientific data. For example, in 1594, crew members on the Grace, an English ship, found an “Indian” camp on the shore of Bay St. George near the wrecks of two Basque whaling vessels. The shipwrecks still contained iron bolts and chains used to attach the main shrouds and fore shrouds, suggesting that local Little Passage/Beothuk had not begun recycling European iron into traditional tools although it is possible that the occupants of the camp intended to scavenge the wrecks.

The camp’s residents may have already removed wrought iron nails, their preferred recycling raw material during the sixteenth century, from the ship wrecks. The description of the camp suggests a traditional

Little Passage/Beothuk settlement. European materials are not mentioned and the houses consisted of

“fir trees bound together at the top and set round like a dovehouse, covered with the bark of fir trees”.

Caribou meat was roasting on spits over open fires and plucked cormorants were reported. There was a dish made from “the ryne of a tree”, likely birch bark, sewn together with deer (caribou) sinew and filled with deer oil (Quinn 1979:64). The oil may have been seal oil or a mixture of coagulated fat and caribou bone marrow which was produced by Beothuk and their Labrador relatives at the mokoshan ritual

(Henriksen 1973:35; Pastore 1992:47). A wooden spoon was observed and footprints suggested the presence of 40 to 50 people, consisting of adults and children (Quinn 1979:64).

Although the Bay St. George “Indian” houses are not described in detail, they appear not to have been housepits which historical and archaeological research shows were used along Newfoundland’s northeast coast and in the Exploits Valley (McLean 2020:4, 6, 19). Archaeological surveying identified three Little Passage sites in Bay St. George although they do not appear to represent the aforementioned camp. The depicted settlement may have eluded archaeological discovery to date, or it could have been destroyed by subsequent historic settlement. Two of the documented sites are chert quarries which supplied the grey-green stone preferred by many Little Passage and Beothuk people, meaning that they were not the campsite in question Simpson (1983:129). The early date of this report reduces the

possibility of this being a Mi’kmaq occupation as this group were infrequent visitors until the eighteenth century (Marshall 1996:49, 154).

Dutch sailors reportedly traded with Beothuk in St. Mary’s Bay in 1606 although there are few details about this encounter. This experience may have helped to prepare these Beothuk for subsequent trade with Europeans, however, as occurred in Trinity Bay, 38 km overland from St. Mary’s Bay, in 1612

(Marshall 1996:39). Beothuk camps and a peaceful Beothuk-European meeting were documented by John

Guy who oversaw the installation of a colony at Cupers Cove, Conception Bay in 1610 (Gilbert 2002:12).

Establishing trade with Beothuk people was part of the economic plan for this project and Guy explored

Trinity Bay, immediately northwest from Conception Bay, during the fall of 1612 in pursuit of this objective. Guy’s party counted 50 Beothuk structures at eight locations along 80 kilometers of coastline at the bottom of Trinity Bay. Most of these buildings were cone-shaped, about 10 feet in diameter and consisted of poles covered with animal skins. One structure was sheathed in a ship’s sail and an unoccupied dwelling had a copper kettle, an old sail and a fishing reel inside it, showing that these Beothuk had incorporated European items into their material culture by this time (Gilbert 1992:7).

Despite the presence of European goods at these Beothuk camps, however, there is no mention of modified iron, including projectile points. Archaeological excavations recovered two modified wrought iron nails from Beothuk context in this part of Trinity Bay, showing that Beothuk were learning the techniques of reworking European iron into projectile points, or Europeans had introduced them to the notion of modifying iron objects before Beothuk vacated this area by the latter seventeenth century

(Gilbert 2002:117; Mills and Gaulton 2010:92). Archaeological surveys support the apparent non-use of housepits by these Beothuk, indicating the retention of a strongly traditional existence throughout the seventeenth century in Trinity Bay despite access to European materials and the close proximity of newcomers, including intermittent contact (Gilbert 2002:126).

Guy had been advised by one of his group that the prospects of winning over Beothuk as trading partners would be greatly assisted by utilizing the services of an individual who had spent considerable time among the natives and knew their language quite well (Gilbert 1992:6). Guy apparently did not employ this person, as when his party met a group of eight Beothuk in All Hallows Bay, Trinity Bay on

November 6, 1612, communication and trade proceeded by sign gestures (Howley 1915:16). Guy’s group also subsequently engaged in silent barter with Beothuk who placed furs on the beach and vacated the immediate area before Europeans arrived and selected what they wanted, leaving appropriate payment

(Howley 1915:18). This type of exchange also subsequently took place in the Exploits Valley, but the dearth of historic references to Beothuk for a number of years after 1612 has been attributed to poor relations with Europeans (Marshall 1996:22, 26, 29, 31, 33, 138). It is also possible that undiscovered historic information containing references to this period may eventually be uncovered.

Nonetheless, historical and archaeological data suggest the lack of cooperation between Beothuk and Europeans is largely attributable to the latter’s implementation of a migratory fishery, eventually followed by fur trapping and other economic pursuits, that did not employ Beothuk or involve partnerships with them (Pastore 1989:57). This situation was facilitated by the widely dispersed Little

Passage/Beothuk population which consisted of a number of largely autonomous bands that did not uniformly respond to the steadily increasing European presence in their homeland (Marshall 1996:285;

Holly 2008:174). The multi-national character of the encroaching European fishermen, initially, and their sheer numbers also manifested an unpredictable entity for Beothuk to deal with (Holly 2000:86). This may account for the breakdown in the good relations exemplified in John Guy’s 1612 experience. Guy apparently understood that he would meet with his Beothuk contacts the following year in Trinity Bay, but as the latter waited for him to arrive, another group of Europeans encountered the natives and opened fire on them, not knowing of the pre-arranged encounter (Howley 1915:18). While this single alleged example of a Beothuk-European misunderstanding probably does not account for the total

breakdown in relations between the two groups, it presents a likely scenario that could have occurred repeatedly along the Newfoundland coastline.

Historical references to Beothuk increase during the mid-eighteenth century when

Newfoundland’s government and some citizens who were concerned with the Beothuk’s diminishing numbers attempted to reach out to them. While the efforts at friendly contact were unsuccessful, they did accumulate a significant amount of information that is still relevant today. Portions of these data are discussed throughout this paper. Newfoundland’s Governor, Hugh Palliser, in 1768, instructed Lieutenant

John Cartwright to lead an expedition through the Exploits Valley and establish friendly with the “Red

Indians” who were spending longer periods in that interior region in order to isolate themselves from settlers. Cartwright did not meet any Beothuk during this trip, but he recorded the presence of 104

Beothuk structures, or mamateeks, throughout the valley. Cartwright’s journal and map of the Exploits

Valley are still vitally important to ongoing Beothuk research in this area (Figure 9). He described some of the houses, along with deer fences, canoes, an arrow tipped with an iron blade and included a fanciful illustration of an occupied Beothuk camp (Figure 9). Cartwright also described the Beothuk’s seasonal round which consisted of them spending three-quarters of the year dispersed along the coast between

Cape Freels and Cape St. John, complemented by a winter in the Exploits Valley. He noted that this coastal area was much reduced from the traditional Beothuk range due to constriction by historic pressures

(Howley 1915:33). Subsequent historical information and archaeological research shows the presence of at least 243 Beothuk structures throughout the Exploits Valley, manifesting a much higher number of buildings compared to coastal regions although many generations of Beothuk lived along the marine shoreline before they concentrated within the Exploits Valley (McLean 2018a:86). The reasons why

Beothuk needed so many interior structures are still being determined, but they appear to be linked to a significant increase in caribou hunting combined with the desire to avoid surprise encounters with

European settlers (see below).

Figure 9: Cartwright's 1768 map of Newfoundland’s Exploits Valley.

John Cartwright was accompanied by his brother George who, in 1772, observed Beothuk camps on the coast of the Bay of Exploits/Notre Dame Bay and went as far as advocating establishing a Beothuk

“district” to facilitate their survival (Howley 1915:46-49, 53). Shortly after Cartwright’s recommendations,

Lieutenant George Pulling, in 1792, interviewed fishing station owners, furriers, salmon fishers and planters who lived or worked in regions utilized by Beothuk along the northeast coast. Pulling recorded many incidents of violence against Beothuk, but he also noted that numerous settlers were sympathetic to their plight and felt they could be incorporated into European society (Marshall 1996:115, 116).

Pulling’s information also describes Beothuk recycling European iron, food preparation and other behaviors. He advocated winning the confidence of Beothuk and establishing trade with them, suggesting a variation of George Cartwright’s earlier proposal (Marshall 1989:17).

There were at least eight attempts to befriend Beothuk in the Newfoundland interior between

1803 and 1828. Three of these were led by Lieutenant David Buchan, two were directed by William

Cormack, two were implemented by William Cull, a furrier/salmon fisher, and Captain William Glascock undertook one foray into the interior. Cull also participated in at least one of Buchan’s expeditions and was present in a number of private excursions that hoped to recover items Beothuk had allegedly stolen from European trapping or fishing operations. All of these forays reported finding vacant Beothuk houses and camps, in addition to canoes and other objects, but Beothuk people were encountered during some of the ventures. Cull captured a Beothuk woman in Gander Bay in 1803. This women, whose name was not recorded, was housed by Cull and his family for almost a year until he brought her to the Exploits

Valley to rejoin the Beothuk. Although members of the Cull family learned a few Beothuk words, no information pertaining to the Beothuk was acquired from this woman (Marshall 1996:129-131).

Buchan led a group of soldiers, supplemented by furriers who were familiar with the Exploits

Valley, in an inland search for Beothuk in 1811. Buchan plotted the distribution of Beothuk camps and described an occupied wigwam his group encountered on Red Indian Lake. The challenge of establishing

peaceful European-Beothuk relations by 1811 is made apparent in Buchan’s journal of events. Buchan’s group surprised approximately 65 Beothuk occupying three structures on the shore of Red Indian Lake on

January 24, 1811, and the initial contact was peaceful. The Beothuk offered Buchan “venison steaks and fat run into a solid cake” which suggests behavior similar to the Labrador Innu when they invoked a mokoshan ritual to welcome a newcomer to camp (Henriksen 1973:35). The Europeans and Beothuk peacefully interacted for 3.5 hours before the Europeans left, accompanied by four Beothuk, to retrieve presents they had left at their camp on the Exploits River. The meeting had gone well enough for Buchan to leave two marines, who needed to repair their snowshoes, among the Beothuk. Unfortunately, when

Buchan’s group, accompanied by one Beothuk, returned to Red Indian Lake on January 26 they found the two marines had been decapitated by Beothuk and the camp had been vacated (Howley 1915:77-80).

Buchan had misinterpreted the initial meeting with Beothuk or the latter may have been swayed by individuals less inclined to trust the Europeans.

Buchan started a second journey through the Exploits Valley, in search of Beothuk, in March, 1811.

This mission was aborted after a few days when he and his men found a Beothuk storehouse perforated by arrows which they interpreted as a warning (Ibid:84). Buchan’s final journey to Red Indian Lake occurred in January, 1820 when he was tasked with delivering the remains of Demasduit, a Beothuk woman, to her homeland. Buchan did not encounter Beothuk on this trip, but he recorded the presence of abandoned campsites throughout the valley as well as in the Badger Bay watershed between the marine shoreline and the Exploits River. Demasduit’s coffin was suspended six feet above the ground close to where her husband Nonosabusut was interred in a former wigwam converted by Beothuk into a burial chamber on the north shore of the lake (Ibid:123-125). Beothuk subsequently modified this burial site, placing both bodies, along with the remains of a few children and grave goods, inside a structure.

William Cormack, who undertook gruelling overland treks, attempting to contact Beothuk in 1822 and

1828, found this burial site during his second expedition. He collected the skulls of Nonosabasut and

Demasduit, along with some of the grave goods. Cormack also recorded the presence of abandoned

Beothuk camps, including a large village of more than a dozen structures on the shore of South Twin Lake or in the vicinity of New Bay Ponds, the precise location is not clearly stated in historic documents

(Ibid:190) (Figure 13).

Cormack’s act of disturbing the graves of Demasduit and Nonosabusut appears heavy-handed by today’s standards, but he was generally sympathetic to the Beothuk cause. Cormack was instrumental in the creation of the Beothuk Institution in November, 1827 to continue the philanthropic efforts at securing peaceful relations with the surviving Beothuk (Howley 1915:182). Shanawdithit, a Beothuk woman who lived among Newfoundland settlers from 1823 until her death on June 6, 1829, was

Cormack’s house guest from late September, 1828 until early November of that year or January, 1829

(Marshall 1996:202). Shanawdithit provided Cormack with much information about the Beothuk, including a number of maps and sketches. Although Shanawdithit’s testimony revealed that a small number of Beothuk probably were still living in the Badger Bay watershed near the time of her death, her people were considered extinct as of 1829 when she passed away in St. John’s.

Public and academic interest in the Beothuk continued to grow following the passing of

Shanawdithit. Newfoundland’s surveyor-general, Joseph Beete Jukes, spent much of 1839 and 1840 in a geologic survey of the island, but he also noted the locations of a number of First Nations campsites. His

Mi’Kmaq guides were still concerned about meeting Beothuk as they accompanied Jukes around the

Grand Pond, now known as Grand Lake, in 1839 (Cuff and Wilton 1993:78). Jukes observed wigwams at five locations along the Grand Lake (Pond) shoreline and reported seeing 12 in total at nine places throughout Newfoundland during his survey (Ibid:51, 52, 54, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 77). Some of these were occupied by Mi’kmaq or Labrador Innu while others were skeletons or frames of structures, raising the possibility that they were the remains of Beothuk camps. Jukes’ team found the “Indian path” around the

Grand Falls on the Exploits River, after some difficulty, and he also reported picking berries while spending

the night at the Beaches (DeAk-01), which was subsequently identified as one of the largest Beothuk villages (Ibid:202) (Plate 1). Jukes refers to the Beaches by name, but does not mention its significance as a former Beothuk settlement.

ERODED

Plate 1: Overhead view of the Beaches (DeAk-01), 1995.

T.G.B. Lloyd was another Surveyor-General of Newfoundland who contributed significant data pertaining to the island’s First Nations. Lloyd spent much of the 1873-75 period surveying the

Newfoundland coastline and interior. He observed various geological attributes in addition to describing a number of important archaeological sites and collecting stone artifacts from a few locations. Lloyd also examined stone artifacts that had been collected from 15 Newfoundland sites or general locations (Lloyd

1876:233) (Table 8). He visited the Beaches site (DeAk-01) which he referred to as the “Old Camping

Ground” in reference to its First Nations heritage, in 1875. His description of the site’s physical attributes and the reference to the presence of 19 Beothuk housepits there provides a benchmark for measuring the effects of erosion following his visit. Today’s 4000 square meter area represents 10% of the land mass

described by Lloyd and seven extant housepits there indicate that 12 have been lost to erosion due to rising sea level (Lloyd 1876:222; McLean 1990:3) (Plate 1). Erosion has ravaged Maritime Archaic, Palaeo-

Inuit, Recent Indian and Beothuk sections of the Beaches and continues to destroy areas pertaining to the latter three cultural periods. The remaining Maritime Archaic component appears to have been salvage excavated during the 1970s (Carignan 1975:32, 124; McLean 2007:5).

Lloyd also surveyed the Exploits Valley and referenced a number of important archaeological sites in that area. His description of Red Indian Point, now known as Indian Point (DeBd-01), on Red Indian

Lake shows a topography very unlike the current one. Lloyd reported finding 21 housepits along the edge of a 30 foot high bank of drift overlooking the water and additional housepits occurred as far as Low Point to the east. Mi’kmaq people told Lloyd that an octagonal structure had stood over the largest housepit which was 33 feet in diameter (Lloyd 1876a:223, 224). Indian Point currently gradually rises 12 to 15 feet above the edge of the lake which suggests that the site’s extant housepit and associated external features were originally located near the locality’s inner margin (Plate 2). Construction of a dam across the outflow to the Exploits River in 1927 raised the lake water level by 30 feet and decimated much of the area’s archaeological resources (Morry and Cole 1977:1, 42; McLean 2017:8; 2013:8; Penney et al 2010:9). The

June’s Cove (DeBd-03) and Indian Point (DeBd-01) sites, which are currently separated by 50 meters, appear to have originally comprised the large settlement described by Cartwright in 1768 and by Lloyd in

1875 (Locke Field Notes; Thomson 1987 Field Notes; McLean 2017a:14). June’s Cove did not contain housepits, but produced 262 iron items along with 18 made from other European materials and 176 precontact artifacts (McLean 1990:np; 2013:27). This includes a much larger Beothuk assemblage than the 30 iron objects and four of other European materials collected at Indian Point (McLean 2017a:14).

Lloyd also reported the presence of three housepits on a low sandy point at the mouth of the Victoria

River, a few kilometers southwest from Indian Point (Lloyd 1875:222). He noted that other former

Beothuk camps were visible along the Exploits River, three to four miles east of Noel Paul’s Brook, as well

as at the juncture of Badger Brook and a stream running from Little Red Indian Pond. Former camps also existed at Rushy Pond and along Indian Brook between Grand Lake and Hall’s Bay (Ibid:224).

EXTANT INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) EXTANT JUNES COVE DISTURBED (DeBd-03)

(

Plate 2: Surviving portions of Indian Point (DeBd-01) and June‘s Cove (DeBd-03).

Lloyd displayed a degree of insight when he speculated that some of the stone artifacts he collected and were otherwise made available for his examination might represent the Precontact period, but he felt that Beothuk, rather than Innu or Inuit, had manufactured the objects (Lloyd 1876b:244, 245).

Subsequent archaeological research showed that Lloyd’s collection of artifacts actually does represent many of Newfoundland’s former First Nation cultures spanning different periods. Five pictured items in one of his published articles clearly represent Maritime Archaic objects rather than Beothuk (Ibid:239).

One of these artifacts had allegedly been collected from a Beothuk wigwam on Red Indian Lake in 1810

(Ibid:238). Lloyd understood that a Beothuk man had been using the tool, which means that Beothuk were re-using Maritime Archaic artifacts they found or Lloyd had confused his provenience information.

The latter possibility seems likely as a subsequent publication claims that a small item collected by John

Peyton Jr. from a Red Indian Lake wigwam during the capture of Demasduit on March 5, 1819 was later donated to Lloyd (Peyton 1987:44). Lloyd gave his collection of artifacts to the Newfoundland Museum and many of the objects were illustrated in J.P. Howley’s 1915 publication, The Beothucks or Red Indians.

While this remains a very useful compilation of historical information pertaining to the Beothuk,

archaeological research implemented after 1915 shows that 11 of the book’s 25 pictured artifacts mistakenly attribute Maritime Archaic, Palaeo-Inuit and Ancestral Beothuk items to the Beothuk. Another two plates show large crude lithic items that represent unfinished tools that are ambiguous as to who manufactured them.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND RELATED INQUIRY CONTRIBUTING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF BEOTHUK CULTURE Primary historic records acknowledged the presence of a resident First Nation in Newfoundland and tabulated observations pertaining to settlement-subsistence patterns, material culture and ideology.

Ultimately, Europeans took more notice of these cultural attributes, possibly as they realized that the

Beothuk approach to living in Newfoundland was relevant to historic settlers’ economic pursuits and subsistence efforts. Additionally, as mentioned in the preceding summary of historic information, some

Europeans were concerned about the Beothuk and were interested in their way of life, resulting in relevant data being recorded. This ultimately led to academic and private studies of the Beothuk starting early in the twentieth century and continuing until today. American anthropologist Frank Speck travelled to Newfoundland in 1914 “...in the hope of resurrecting some traditional or material traces of their

(Beothuk) existence” (Speck 1922:12). He interviewed Mi’kmaq people and visited numerous Beothuk archaeological sites in central Newfoundland. Speck saw Beothuk housepit depressions at a number of locations, including seven features at Indian Point and 12 along the Exploits River’s north bank where

Badger Brook and Little Red Indian Brook converge with the main channel. Speck also reported seeing the remains of deer fences which the Beothuk used in caribou hunting (Ibid:20, 24) although it should be noted that some of the latter seen by Speck may have been repaired by Mi’kmaq as had occurred along the shores of Red Indian Lake (Lloyd 1875:223). Speck excavated the floors and hearths in some of the housepits occurring around Badger, finding stone tools, metal objects and bone fragments. Mi’kmaq told

Speck that they often camped at Beothuk sites and frequently found “curious” iron knives, axes, traps and other objects when they dug into housepits (Speck 1922:21).

Canadian archaeologist Diamond Jenness visited Red Indian Lake in 1929 and concluded that its archaeological sites had been damaged by the lake’s raised water level and forest encroachment (Jenness

1929:36). Since the 1950s, archaeologists working for Memorial University, the Newfoundland Museum,

Parks Canada and other institutions, along with private researchers, corroborated the evidence for negatively impacted archaeological resources throughout Newfoundland, but also recovered significant new data pertaining to Beothuk, other First Nations and historic settlers (Tables 1-3). As a result, our concept of the Beothuk way of like is much more detailed than it was 60 years ago and continued research promises to deepen our understanding of Beothuk culture. Similar to the incremental growth of historical information about the Beothuk, sustained archaeological research is providing increasingly refined insights into the complexity of Beothuk culture. Excavations in the 1960s recovered stone projectile points, fragments of European objects, fire-cracked rocks, charcoal and animal bone from inside Beothuk housepits at the Beaches (DeAk-01), in Bonavista Bay (Devereux 1969). Beothuk-modified iron and fragments of European items were found in housepits at Pope’s Point (DfBa-01) and Indian Point (DeBd-

01). Corner-notched, side-notched and stemmed stone projectile points were found outside housepits at

Indian Point (DeBd-01) as well as at Cape Freels (DhBi-1-10, 12-16) where housepits were not erected

(Devereux 1965, 1970; Carignan 1975; 1977; Austin 1980). These stone projectile points were initially considered to be variations of Beothuk tools until excavation of the L’Anse A’ Flamme site (CjAx-01) on

Newfoundland’s south coast in 1978-79 produced corner-notched examples in a discrete culture layer that was radiocarbon dated to approximately 1130 years ago, roughly A.D. 900. This showed that these tools pre-dated Beothuk artifacts by over 600 years (Penney 1984:54, 185) (Table 3). The cultural period represented by the corner-notched projectile points and associated artifacts was named the Little Passage complex with respect to L’Anse A’ Flamme’s location in the Little Passage, a marine channel. Side-notched

stone projectile points that occurred at L’Anse A’ Flamme, the Beaches site (DeAk-01) and many other localities were named the Beaches complex which represents the Little Passage complex’s ancestors. It should be noted that Beothuk Institute member Tom Kendell told archaeologists about the L’Anse A’

Flamme site, leading to its excavation.

Plate 3: Little Passage projectile point from the Childes site (DgBo-01), Bay of Islands.

Plate 4: Beothuk chert projectile points from the interior of Housepit 6 at the Beaches site (DeAk-01), radiocarbon dated to 390 +/- 70 BP (CAL AD 1454-1604) (Beta-39900).

The importance of the L’anse A’ Flamme discovery was enhanced by excavations, in the 1980s, at

Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03) and Inspector Island (DiAq-01), in Notre Dame Bay, that found corner-notched and stemmed stone projectile points, similar to those from L’Anse A’ Flamme and other sites, in association with European objects inside Beothuk housepits (Pastore 1985:323) (Table 3). Similar stone tools were

found in association with European materials on Frenchman’s Island (ClAl-01), Trinity Bay, but housepits were never adopted by Beothuk there (Evans 1981; 1982; McLean 2020). Subsequent excavations at the

Beaches site (DeAk-01) found the same type of stone projectile points associated with European objects inside housepits (Plate 4) (McLean 1991, 1994, 2002; Deal and McLean 1995). The co-occurrence of stone projectile points and European materials, along with slightly different stone points that were not associated with historic settler items showed the traditional Little Passage toolkit had changed as it incorporated European objects during the sixteenth century. By the mid-seventeenth century at Boyd’s

Cove, and earlier in Bonavista Bay and Trinity Bay, Little Passage material culture was sufficiently altered to warrant re-naming it Beothuk. Some of the key Beothuk traits included the construction of more substantial housepits instead of conical wigwams, the production of iron projectile points from European iron objects and the popularity of bone pendants, especially in burials (McLean 1989; 2020; Kristensen and Holly 2013:44). Little Passage settlement-subsistence patterns were also modified as Newfoundland’s resident population attempted to cope with growing numbers of Europeans in their environment (see below).

Morphological examination of Little Passage and Beothuk stone projectile points indicated that the shape of these tools changed as Beothuk iron-recycling skills improved and iron projectile points gradually replaced stone examples. Little Passage stone projectile points were summarized as small, stemmed and corner-notched, featuring bifacial retouch (Schwarz 1984:1). Over time, the amount of retouch diminished to unifacial, or none, and there was reduced longitudinal symmetry, showing the declining quality of Beothuk stone tools. Little Passage corner-notched points were replaced by basally notched versions which were in turn succeeded by stemmed points. Stem width gradually decreased, resulting in straight or contracting versions (Ibid:52, 54) (Plates 3 - 5). Identification of a diagnostic Little

Passage toolkit facilitated plotting the distribution of their archaeological sites. The latter tend to occur within inner coastal and near coastal interior zones, indicating limited use of marine resources with access

to terrestrial alternatives (Ibid:33). A small number of Little Passage and Beaches complex sites were found in the deep interior, areas located more than 30 kilometers from the sea coast, showing that the

Beothuk’s ancestors were familiar with this environment through intermittent visits (Figures 2, 3; Table

1).

Plate 5: Stone projectile points recovered from a hearth at Boom Island (DfAw-03), radiocarbon dated to 320 +/- 30 Before Present (1950) (CAL AD 1470-1650) (McLean 2016a:27).

Although the distribution of Little Passage artifacts, as well as the antecedent Beaches complex items, throughout Newfoundland and part of Labrador indicates a chronological-cultural network spread over a large region, contact over extended distances was probably infrequent. Little Passage society appears to have consisted of isolated bands that existed as separate communities for much of the year.

These bands probably were composed of one or more hunting groups that regularly congregated for one season. Bands’ geographic separation from one another fostered independent activities, implying minimal inter-band cooperation except for emergencies (Marshall 1996:285; Holly 2008:174). Band autonomy contributed to Little Passage people reacting to Europeans in a non-uniform fashion throughout Newfoundland. Individual band perception of European activity at a given time would have been primarily internalized by a local group rather than instantly shared throughout Newfoundland,

although at least some of this information conceivably was exchanged during traditional meetings between relatively isolated Little Passage communities. Furthermore, the fishermen working along

Newfoundland’s coast hailed from a variety of European countries, resulting in different, often unpredictable behaviors for Little Passage to deal with and further complicating the challenge of coping with the newcomers (Holly 2000:86). The outcome of this mottled early contact period was the restricted distribution of innovative Beothuk characteristics, including iron-recycling, housepit construction and perhaps local subsistence activities (Figures 2, 3).

Recovery of sizeable Little Passage faunal samples from Inspector Island (DiAq-01) and the

Beaches (DeAk-01) found evidence for predominant use of marine resources within the inner coastal environment (Pastore 1989:260; McLean 1990:13; 1991:10, 12; Cridland 1998:264). Faunal debris from these sites is dominated by harbour seal and harp seal remains although the latter are probably underrepresented due to butchering techniques and the breaking of long bones to obtain marrow

(Cridland 1998:265). A small Little Passage sample of 70 elements from the Port au Port Peninsula consisted of 55.7 % beaver fragments and 30 % caribou, suggesting a non-marine focus despite this being a coastal location (Simpson 1987:203-209). A larger sample of faunal material would be desirable for satisfactorily determining the main economic focus of this Little Passage occupation, however (Cridland

1998:23). The Beaches complex implemented a similar seasonal round with a predominant focus on the inner coastal environment, but the older phase differed from the Little Passage in having to share the coast with the Dorset Palaeo-Inuit who were concentrated along the outer shoreline (Renouf, Bell and

Teal 1999:106, 113, 114). Similar to the Beaches complex, Beothuk had to share their environment and its resources with foreigners, although the Beothuk had to contend with a number of different groups including Labrador Innu and Inuit in northern Newfoundland, along with Mi’Kmaq along the island’s southern shore. Little Passage, or their Beaches complex predecessors, also possibly encountered Norse explorers in Northern Newfoundland before the Little Passage had to adapt to the European migratory

fishery early in the sixteenth century. The Beaches complex experience was different, however, considering that they appear to have moved into regions that were already occupied by Palaeo-Inuit while the Little Passage were the resident population that had to come to terms with visits from outsiders.

The onset of the migratory fishery shortly after Cabot’s discovery of the New-Founde-Lande, annually delivered boatloads of temporary European visitors to the Little Passage environment.

Newfoundland’s South Coast, Southeast Coast and the east shore of the Great Northern Peninsula were the preferred fishing areas by sixteenth century Europe (Figure 7). Although thousands of Basques,

Normans, Portuguese and Spanish fishermen were soon active along parts of the Newfoundland coast, followed by English fishermen late in the sixteenth century, they initially may have only marginally impacted the Little Passage, if at all. The specific conditions required for establishing European fishing rooms included good mooring for ships, safe landing for smaller boats, fresh water, access to wood, level terrain for drying fish, along with access to bait and fishing grounds. The scarcity of locations possessing all of these requirements meant that most of the coast line remained available to the Little Passage although it seems likely that the latter also probably coveted some of the desirable ports preferred by

Europeans (Pope 2008:139, 141). Nonetheless, Little Passage were initially free to monitor European activity in relative safety and when the fishermen returned home in the fall, Little Passage people could thoroughly scavenge their abandoned premises for useful objects left behind.

Some of the initial adjustments to traditional Little Passage settlement patterns may have been made to facilitate targeting these vacant facilities (Pope 1993:288). The South Coast offered the best potential for early Little Passage encounters with Europeans, followed by the northeast Northern

Peninsula although further surveying of Newfoundland’s coastline could produce additional information to be considered. While details of sixteenth-century Little Passage-European interactions are few,

Beothuk traded with Dutch sailors in St. Mary’s Bay in 1606 (Marshall 1996:39). Beothuk housepits or modified iron have not been found along the South Coast, but six Little Passage sites that produced

stemmed, asymmetric or unifacially retouched stone points, or contained European objects, represent possible early Beothuk occupations (Table 4). Three graves found in Placentia Bay and a fourth unconfirmed burial provide additional evidence for a South Coast Beothuk population (Marshall 1996:412,

414, 420) (Table 3). The Beothuk site identified at Ferryland (CgAf-02), the only Beothuk site east of the

Avalon Isthmus, is attributed to Beothuk, possibly based on the South Coast, scavenging at a vacant late sixteenth century fishing station (Galton 2001:16). The closest other Beothuk site to Ferryland is Russell’s

Point (CiAj-01)), which is located 72 kilometers away overland at the bottom of Trinity Bay (Figure 3).

Barring the possibility that closer Beothuk sites were destroyed by historic settlement or erosion, at least

68.7 % of 80 South Coast localities are damaged or destroyed, Beothuk based along this shoreline, or in

Trinity Bay, undertook a rare extended overland trek to collect nails and other European objects at

Ferryland (Table 2). They also utilized chert from the Ferryland area, showing the retention of traditional industry until this time (Ibid:2, 5). Given the ease of moving overland across the isthmus between

Placentia Bay and Trinity Bay, Beothuk living in both areas probably frequently interacted.

Although there are eighteenth-century references to Beothuk at Hare Bay, on the Northern

Peninsula, as well as in Bonne Bay and the Port au Port Peninsula on the West Coast, the absence of

Beothuk archaeological sites in these regions suggests that the West Coast’s Little Passage residents had a muted reaction to the arrival of European fishermen. Whether this interpretation is attributable to inadequate data due to insufficient archaeological surveying and/or the destruction of archaeological resources through erosion and/or historic development, or the inability of a scattered, small population of Little Passage people to cope with historic pressures, remains to be seen. The author’s examination of artifacts found at Parkes Beach (DgBm-01), a tentative Beothuk site on the West Coast, concludes it represents a small European component on top of a Groswater Palaeo-Inuit occupation. Further excavations at this site are required to prove Beothuk stopped there.

Current data show that the regions which experienced the earliest European fishing activity and thereby the longest exposure to historic pressures, were the first to lose their Beothuk populations. Little

Passage/Beothuk living among the islands and sheltered coastlines of Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay were buffered from the front of the early migratory fishery. This isolation fostered an extended coastal existence for Little Passage/Beothuk and also facilitated significant alterations to their settlement- subsistence habits, material culture and, conceivably ideology. Although outer headlands at Cape

Bonavista, Salvage, Cape Freels, Fogo and Twillingate were familiar to European explorers and fishermen heading to the Labrador Straits, they mainly avoided these two large bays until the eighteenth century.

Beothuk living at the Beaches were building innovative housepits, modifying iron and producing bone pendants by the mid to latter sixteenth century, apparently in the absence of a direct European threat.

They built 19 housepits at the site between 1550 and 1750 (Tables 3, 4). Beothuk built 11 housepits at

Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03) and three at Inspector Island (DiAq-01) in Notre Dame Bay, 140 kilometers from the Beaches, between 1650 and 1730 although additional excavations are needed to determine if all of

Boyd’s Cove’s former houses fall into this period.

Examples of Little Passage architecture has not been found by archaeologists, but their structures probably resembled conical wigwams described by Europeans in Bay St. George in 1594 and Trinity Bay in

1612. The Bay St. George houses “...consisted of fir trees bound together at the top and set round like a dovehouse and covered with the bark of trees... (Quinn 1979:64). The Trinity Bay shelters mostly consisted of conical structures seen at eight sites along 80 kilometers of coastline and were about ten feet in diameter. Their wooden frames were covered with animal skins, except for one which was sheathed in a ship’s sail. The presence of the sail-covered wigwam, along with a cooper kettle, an old sail and a fishing reel found inside another wigwam showed that the Trinity Bay Little Passage/Beothuk were in possession of European goods by 1612 (Howley 1915:15). Each house contained a central fire (Gilbert 1992:7). One of the Trinity Bay observers felt that the Beothuk houses could only accommodate one man, along with a

woman and child (Marshall 1996:350). Although Beothuk continued to use this type of small, unexcavated building, larger, better insulated housepits soon became their preferred type of architecture in Bonavista

Bay, Notre Dame Bay and the Exploits Valley. The Beothuk adoption of housepits, which retained 20 % more heat than unexcavated wigwams did, at the Beaches site around the mid-sixteenth century was associated with an increased harp seal harvest which probably involved an extended winter occupation.

An increased supply of stored seal meat would have permitted the Bonavista Bay Beothuk to reduce their summertime coastal hunting, thereby minimizing the potential for chance encounters with European fishermen. Bonavista Bay’s resident Beothuk appear to have died out or moved to a more remote area, possibly the Straight Shore between that bay and Fogo Island, during the mid-eighteenth century. There is no evidence that Beothuk retreated inland from Bonavista Bay as they did in Notre Dame Bay (see below).

Nineteen housepits were present at the Beaches in 1875, but rampant coastal erosion has destroyed 12 of them, along with other archaeological resources, since then (Plate 1). Sections of two housepits were archaeologically excavated in 1965, but dense forest covering the site prevented mapping all of them at that time (Devereux 1969). Erosional damage was ongoing at the site then and has continued. Portions of five housepits were excavated between 1989 and 1996, recovering thousands of animal bones along with stone artifacts and a small amount of European material (McLean 2002:36-41).

Fragments of a bone pendant were recovered from the hearth of Housepit 6 in 1990 (McLean 1991:17).

Charcoal from the hearth of Housepit 6 was radiocarbon dated to 390 + 70 BP (A.D. 1454-1604 CAL) (Beta-

39900), establishing it as the oldest dated Beothuk housepit (Ibid:16) (Table 5). Excavation of areas outside the housepits, including salvaging two Ancestral Beothuk hearths along the eroding bank, collected numerous stone projectile points along with other artifacts. The two eroding hearths, which occurred 30 meters west from the housepits, were radiocarbon dated to 560 + 40 BP (CAL AD 1305-1365)

(Beta-210315) and AD 890-1020 (CAL) (Beta-234870) (McLean 2005, 2008). The Beothuk construction of

housepits slightly removed from Ancestral Beothuk features was also observed at a number of other large

Little Passage/Beothuk sites, indicating a pattern in the succession of Beothuk over Little Passage (Tables

3, 4).

Beothuk living in Notre Dame Bay, 140 kilometers northwest from the Beaches site, built 11 housepits at Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03) and three at Inspector Island (DiAq-01), 19 kilometers from Boyd’s

Cove, that are contemporaneous with some of the Bonavista Bay examples. Partial excavation of five of

Boyd’s Cove’s housepits indicate they were built between 1650 and 1720 although there may have been intermittent usage after this (Pastore 1982:137; 1983:98, 102; 1992:34, 40). Given the evidence for

Ancestral Beothuk artifacts at the site, it is also possible that some, or all, of the other Boyd’s Cove housepits were used before 1650. Excavation of two of the Inspector Island housepits suggests they were used after Boyd’s Cove had been abandoned around 1720 (Pastore 1987:12). Similar to the Beaches, these two sites occur within a sheltered archipelago that filtered the effects of the migratory fishery for some 200 years. Although this permitted the Notre Dame Bay Beothuk to take pre-emptive action in response to increasing European activity outside their region, there is also evidence for peaceful interactions with Europeans at or near Boyd’s Cove. Five of Boyd’s Cove housepits that are as much as three times larger than other coastal examples stood along the edge of a six meter high bank, leading to the conclusion that their Beothuk occupants were not concerned about their visibility to Europeans.

Archaeological excavations recovered a large faunal sample and a diverse toolkit consisting of stone tools comparable to those from the Beaches and other Little Passage/Beothuk sites, but there were many more

European items, including 1712 iron objects, at Boyd’s Cove.

Analysis of Boyd’s Cove’s (DiAp-03) faunal material concluded that the site’s occupants’ successful hunting endeavours were evidence of their being at ease in their environment (Cummba 1984:18). This situation, combined with the large conspicuous houses and elaborate toolkit were interpreted as evidence of a florescence of Beothuk occurring during part of the housepit period there (Pastore 1989:66-67).

There is also strong evidence for peaceful Beothuk-European interactions at Boyd’s Cove, or nearby. The prominent, unusually large Beothuk houses at the site may have helped to notify Europeans of their occupants’ willingness to trade and the inclusion of 677 glass trade beads among the site’s European materials is strong evidence for Beothuk-European transactions (Pastore 1992:35). This possibility is supported by metallurgical analysis of some of the site’s modified iron which shows that a few nails had been hammered flat at temperatures only attainable in a forge, implying that Europeans supplied Beothuk with altered nails or provided tips regarding how to rework iron objects (McLean 1989:99-101).

Comparing modified iron from Boyd’s Cove to that from more recent sites throughout the Exploits Valley shows that Beothuk were still learning how to rework this metal at the coastal site. Some of Boyd’s Cove’s iron projectile points possess shouldered blades and exemplify high workmanship, but an equal number with non-shouldered blades are much less detailed (Plate 6). Most of the Boyd’s Cove projectile points

Plate 6: Type 1A (A-C) and Type 2A (D-G) projectile points from Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03). were made from wrought iron nails while a wider variety of European iron objects, including more challenging items, were used as raw materials in more recent Exploits Valley Beothuk sites. Boyd’s Cove’s

faunal sample included a proportion of fur bearing species, which may have provided pelts to be sold to

Europeans or for Beothuk usage (Cummba 1984:15).

Despite the short-lived florescence experienced by Beothuk at Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03), relations with Europeans deteriorated and the site was evacuated around 1720. The local Beothuk-European impasse resulted in Beothuk building smaller houses that were placed noticeably further from the open edge of the terrace, making them less visible from the water (Pastore 1992:34). At least some of the

Beothuk who had lived at Boyd’s Cove built three housepits at Inspector Island (DiAq-01) which for a while was safely distanced from European activity. Other Boyd’s Cove residents moved further inland via the

Exploits Valley, which was even further removed from European activity, and increased their reliance on terrestrial resources although they were compelled to intermittent returns to the coast (Cartwright

1792:4; Rowley-Conway 1990). The Beothuk who had shifted directly to the Exploits Valley from Boyd’s

Cove may have been eventually joined by the families who had set up camp on Inspector Island. There is no evidence that the Notre Dame Bay Beothuk who moved to the Exploits Valley merged with Beothuk from other coastal regions of Newfoundland although this may have occurred. The continued evolution of Beothuk iron-recycling and the widespread construction of housepits throughout the Exploits Valley, however, shows that the Beothuk who occupied the valley from 1720 to 1829, consisted entirely, or mostly, of members of the Notre Dame Bay band.

Settlement-subsistence patterns of this terminal Beothuk phase represent peoples’ attempts to procure substantial quantities of caribou, supplemented by other terrestrial resources and marine options, when the latter were safely accessible, while maintaining a safe distance between themselves and Europeans. Historical and archaeological data show that Beothuk built 243 structures along the

Exploits River and Red Indian Lake during this period. At least 165 of these buildings were housepits distributed over 32 sites (McLean 2018a:86). Amateur research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s sampled 42 housepits, while one was professionally dug in 1969 and three were archaeologically

excavated in 1972 (Locke Field Notes; Devereux 1970; LeBlanc 1973). Archaeological research in the

Exploits Valley largely lapsed until 2009 when Newfoundland and Labrador’s Provincial Archaeology Office initiated a plan to evaluate the condition of the valley’s Beothuk sites. As of 2016, 62 Beothuk housepits had been re-identified at 21 sites and new housepits had been found at Sabbath Point (DeBd-08), on Red

Indian Lake, and at Two Mile Island-2 (DfBa-03), a previously discovered camp near Badger (McLean

2020:52). The latter site also contained a unique rock-lined pit that was incorporated into a large boulder platform (McLean 2015b; 2017b) (Table 6b).

When the updated data pertaining to the Exploits Valley’s Beothuk housepits were grouped with information compiled for coastal examples, patterns incorporating morphology, assemblage, chronology and distribution were detected (Figure 10). The Beaches housepits and the five largest ones from Boyd’s

Cove constitute the Early Housepit Period when Beothuk did not feel directly threatened by Europeans and accordingly built highly visible structures close to the marine shoreline. This facilitated landing their canoes and dis-embarking, as well as preparing to leave in pursuit of game or other resources. The conspicuous housepits may have at times helped to signal a willingness to trade with Europeans or other non-Beothuk. Three housepits at Inspector Island are included with the Early Period features although they were built after Beothuk had abandoned the large Boyd’s Cove settlement. The positioning of the

Inspector Island housepits suggests their Beothuk occupants did not anticipate a surprise encounter with

Europeans at that time at that location. All of the Early Period housepits contain stone tools and associated traditional implements. Significantly, all of the Early Period housepits, except one partly excavated at the Beaches site, also produced European materials. It is highly possible that settler items are present in the unexcavated half of Housepit 7 at the Beaches (Deal and McLean 1995:24).

Six Early-Modified Period housepits from Boyd’s Cove were placed well away from the outside edge of the site as Beothuk reacted to a breakdown in relations with Europeans (Pastore 1987:13;

1992:38). These structures were much smaller that the site’s Early Period specimens and excavation of

one, Housepit 11, produced an unsubstantial assemblage indicative of a shorter occupation. Housepit 11 lacked trade beads and forge-modified iron which were present in some of the larger former structures where they were interpreted as possible evidence of trade with Europeans (Pastore 1992:38; McLean

1989:99, 102), but the combination of traditional materials and European alternatives/supplements followed the Early Period pattern.

Analysis of 63 extant Exploits Valley housepits and one previously excavated example constitute the Middle, Late and Late-Modified Periods of housepit construction (Figure 10). The majority of the inland housepits have not been dated, but all three periods are tentatively placed within the 1720-1829 interval (McLean 2020:5, 27). Middle Period structures were the first housepits built by Beothuk in the

Exploits Valley following the evacuation of Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03) around 1720. Most of the Middle Period homes were built at sites that also contained Ancestral Beothuk material, or the letter was nearby, showing that the Middle Period locations were familiar to the Beothuk. Middle Period structures were typically placed close to the Exploits River, facilitating hunting caribou and procuring other resources.

Middle Period housepits may have also been built close to the edge of Red Indian Lake, much further inland from other contemporaneous structures, but the loss of 47 of 50 documented Beothuk buildings to erosion and development along Red Indian Lake precludes assessing the full history of housepit construction in this area (Ibid:23, 28).

Middle Period housepits have an average size of 26.65 m2, similar to the 26.22 m2 for Early-

Modified examples, but smaller than the Early Period mean of 28.58 m2 (Ibid:59). This trend suggests a less affluent lifestyle compared to the florescence characterizing part of Boyd’s Cove’s Early Housepit

Period, but the positioning of Middle Period housepits in visible contexts shows Beothuk perceived a low risk of being detected by Europeans at this time in the Exploits Valley although poor relations had driven them from the Newfoundland coastline by then. The largest housepit in the sample, a 60 m2 feature from

North Angle (DfAw-01), was erected just a few meters from the Exploits River during the Middle Period.

This apparent sense of security is attributable to the scarcity of Europeans throughout the interior beyond the Exploits River estuary which was a popular commercial salmon fishing area at this time. The expansion of the salmon fishery, along with the growth of fur trapping throughout the eighteenth century, however, brought increasing numbers of historic settlers into closer proximity to Beothuk throughout the Exploits

Valley, bringing an end to the Middle Housepit Period around 1781. This tentative date is based on a historic report of Europeans routing Beothuk camp located three days upriver in that year. The 1781 attack also included the murder of a Beothuk man (Marshall 1996:103, 104, 126). This location appears to be Nimrod’s Pool which was a popular Ancestral Beothuk hunting/camping area and the location of the majority of Middle Period housepits (McLean 2020:56) (Figure 10).

The Late Period of housepit construction saw Beothuk retreat further inland to sites clustered around Red Indian Falls and Noel Paul’s Brook which are located 42 to 54 kilometers from Nimrod’s Pool

(Figure 10). The Glade site (DeBc-02), the westernmost part of the Noel Paul’s Brook cluster is 18 kilometers from Red Indian Lake, signifying the deep interior location locations of Late Period housepits.

Given the importance of Red Indian Lake to caribou-based economies, this waterbody’s shoreline probably contained Late Period housepits as well, before erosion destroyed 47 of 50 documented structures there. The 15 Late Period housepits are distributed over 6 sites that do not contain any evidence for Ancestral Beothuk or other Precontact usage. Flakes and a biface fragment were recovered from a non-housepit site within the Noel Paul’s Brook area, but the Beothuk construction of housepits at previously unoccupied localities represents the expansion of their resource-procurement activities into traditionally unpopular regions. This was a major adjustment to settlement-subsistence habits that had been established over preceding generations.

Europeans destroyed a number of Beothuk camps near the juncture of Red Indian Lake and the

Exploits River in 1790, showing that Late-Period occupations were no longer safe from attack. Beothuk

FIGURE 10: DISTRIBUTION OF BEOTHUK HOUSEPIT AGE CATEGORIES PER SITE

NOTRE DAME BAY

BONAVISTA BAY

EARLY EARLY-MODIFIED

MIDDLE

LATE LATE-MODIFIED

reacted by building new housepits on high terraces and further from the waterline along the Exploits River as well as Red Indian Lake in order to enhance their defensibility. Seven extant housepits at two Red

Indian Falls sites occur eight to nine meters above the river as did an unspecified number of structures along Red Indian Lake before a dam built across the outflow to the Exploits River raised the lake water level by 30 feet (Morry and Cole 1977:1, 42; Penney et al 2010:9; McLean 2017b:27). Two Late-Modified

Period housepits remain along the south shore of the lake although further surveying of the northwest and southwest shorelines could unearth currently unknown specimens. Three other tentatively identified

Late-Modified housepits at Indian Point (DeBd-01) require archaeological testing to confirm or refute their interim classification as housepits (Williamson et al 2021:178). Other Late-Modified housepits were built at lower elevations along the Exploits River, but were placed further, up to 48 meters, from the waterline to provide a buffer from surprise encounters with non-Beothuk visitors (McLean 2020:38).

The 27 Late-Modified housepits have the largest average size, 36.47 m2, of the five chronological groups. Larger houses were needed as relatively healthy families accommodated survivors from less fortunate households that were decimated by disease and foreign attacks. Shanawdithit reported there were a number housholds consisting of nine to 15 people between 1811 and 1820, a housing trend that correlates with the highest numbers of Extra-Large, Large and Medium-sized housepits occurring within the Late-Modified category (Marshall 1996:206, 208, 170, 179). Paradoxically, this time period also has the smallest housepit on record and the lowest Small mean, indicating the continued need for a variety of structures during this terminal Beothuk interval. Small storehouses, in addition to much larger ones, were historically documented during the Late-Modified time frame, suggesting a function for these relatively confined Late-Modified structures.

The increased diversity in housepit morphology and contexts characterizing Exploits Valley is matched by changes in the Beothuk toolkit. All 22 extant coastal housepits, representing the Early and

Early-Modified Periods, contained traditional Beothuk tools and 21 of 22 housepits also held European

items, including modified iron. Conversely, the majority of the assemblages obtained from Middle Period,

Late Period and Late-Modified housepit interiors consist almost completely of European materials, other than a few flakes from one housepit at Little Red Indian Brook (DfBa-06) and a worked cobble from Four

Mile Rapids (DfAv-01) (McLean 2016b:25; 2018a:54). Stone chips were previously recorded from housepit interiors dug near Badger, but it is unclear if they came from Little Red Indian Brook or closer to Pope’s

Point (DfBa-01) (Speck 1921:21). A few Exploits Valley housepits produced flakes from their earthen foundations, but these artifacts represent secondary deposits that cannot are often not associated with the Beothuk occupation of the housepit (McLean 2017a:28; 2018b:28). Professional excavation of five

Exploits Valley housepits and controlled testing of others, along with avocational digging in at least 42 housepits have not recovered stone projectile points and associated lithic artifacts other than the results listed above. Further excavation of housepit interiors is required to more clearly explain the Beothuk’s apparent dramatic abandonment of their chipped stone industry after leaving Notre Dame Bay around

1720. The impact of widespread looting and other disturbance incurred by Exploits Valley housepit assemblages must be considered in interpreting the succession of iron over stone tools.

Good quality chert, quartzite, rhyolite and mudstone are available throughout the valley which means that the Beothuk‘s eventual isolation from coastal quarries need not have stopped their production of stone tools unless strong cultural commitment to the marine raw materials was deeply embedded in their ideology. The processes of procuring raw material from remote quarries such as Ramah Bay in northern Labrador, or at challenging local outcrops like Bloody Bay Cove, in Bonavista Bay, added ideological value to the lithic material (Loring 2002:183; Topping 2010:28; McLean 2015:9). When

Beothuk stopped visiting habitually used quarries or stopped trading for lithic material associated with specific source areas, opting instead to recycle European nails and other manufactured objects, special- purpose excursions that often provided memorable experiences were replaced by trading with Europeans or scavenging from vacant fishing rooms, trap lines and other settler facilities. This severed another

Beothuk connection with Newfoundland’s natural resources although some Beothuk may have gained a degree of solace in the knowledge that many Europeans were frustrated by losing the items.

While some Beothuk possibly lamented the demise of their chipped stone industry, their tool- makers nonetheless applied themselves to learning iron-recycling techniques and these skills continued to develop after they abandoned Notre Dame Bay. Five coastal Beothuk sites have produced 2139 iron artifacts, compared to 1558 from 29 Exploits Valley sites, but the latter had 546 (35.04 %) modified objects relative to 321 (15.0 %) reworked items from the coast. The near-coastal site of Russell’s Point, on Dildo

Pond, is 2.5 kilometers from the Trinity Bay coast. Adding its 27 iron artifacts to the coastal sample raises the latter to 2166 artifacts, 322 (14.87 %) of which were modified by Beothuk. Significantly, 75.5 %, n =

1187, of the iron artifacts from inland sites are from 25 localities that do not have Little Passage components, linking the continued diversification of Beothuk ironworking with the expansion of their settlements and associated hunting areas, into hitherto little used locations.

Wrought iron nails were by far the preferred raw material at coastal sites where Beothuk were learning how to recycle iron during the sixteenth through the mid-eighteenth centuries. Beothuk utilized a wider range of European items as raw materials in the interior following the abandonment of Boyd’s

Cove around 1720. The expanded list includes nails, axes, knives, scissors, fishhooks and fur traps, many of which were thicker and/or incorporated steel, requiring additional hammering and grinding to render an iron projectile point which was the desired tool in almost all production sequences. Interior iron recycling also incorporated the technique of scoring to cut away unwanted sections to produce a specific type of projectile point. Evidence for this technique was detected in one instance at Inspector Island

(DiAq-01), but became much more popular in the interior (McLean 1989:52, 77; 2003:6, 14).

Twelve complete iron projectile points, along with 13 preforms and 35 fragments of both categories collected at four coastal sites constitute four categories (McLean 1989:115) (Table 7). Nails

were the predominantly used as raw material, but a toggling harpoon blade and a deer spear preform were likely derived from a fur trap, as occurred in the interior (Appendix). Some of the coastal examples with shouldered blades exemplify high workmanship while others possessing thin sharp-edged blades, but lacking shoulders manifest more basic iron recycling abilities (Plate 6). The Exploits Valley’s collection of iron projectile points is much larger, being comprised of 57 specimens, along with 49 preforms and 12 fragments. Nimrod’s Pool produced 75 (63.6 %) of these items, indicating the importance of this area for caribou hunting and settlement over the long term for Beothuk (Table 7). One of the incomplete projectile points was found underwater at the edge of Sandy Lake, which is at least 48 kilometers northwest of Red

Indian Lake. The interior sample is divided into eight categories (Table 7). Almost all of the interior’s projectile points have shouldered blades and three large examples, categorized as Type 3D, exhibit extreme attention to detail (Plates 7 - 10). The low number and unique design of the Type 3D projectile points suggest they may have been manufactured by the same individual. One Type 3D projectile point, was found inside a housepit at South Exploits (DfAw-07) while a second one was found outside a housepit

(Plate 8). Another Type 3D item was found outside a housepit at Sabbath Point (DeBd-08), on Red Indian

Lake, 83 kilometers from the South Exploits site (Plate 9). A Type 3D preform was recovered from inside the Sabbath Point housepit. A unique Beothuk iron projectile point, Type 4B, resembling a Little

Passage/early Beothuk stone artifact was also found inside this housepit, raising the possibility that it was manufactured by the same highly skilled individual who produced the Type 3D artifacts. This item was classified as Type 4B because it appears to have been made by a similar process employed to make a toggling harpoon spear point (Plate 10; Appendix). The pan of a fur trap appears to have been used as the raw material (Plate 12).

One of South Exploits’ (DfAw-07) Type 3D projectile points and a Type 4 preform appear to have been cached along with three projectile point preforms, 14 glass trade beads, metal locket fragments, brass buttons, a complete fur trap, trap parts and other, mostly fragmentary European objects inside “a

small pit” (Locke Field Notes:ND). The trade beads tentatively date this deposit to between 1808 and

1820 during which five European excursions into the Exploits Valley brought beads and other items as peace offerings for the Beothuk (Howley 1915:67, 72, 113, 117). Housepit 2 at Red Indian Falls-3 (DfBb-

02) produced 1030 trade beads and 41 beads were found at Pope’s Point (DfBa-01) (Devereux 1965).

South Exploits’ second Type 3D artifact was found outside Housepits 9 and 10, while the Sabbath Point example was also found outside a housepit. The Type 3D preform that was recovered from a pit inside the Sabbath Point housepit may have also been cached by a Beothuk who planned to complete it at a later date (McLean 2018b:19). South Exploits’ (DfAw-07) Type 4 preform is a unique example of Beothuk ironwork that represents another close link with modified iron from the Sabbath Point site (DeBd-08)

(Plate 11).

Plate 7: Type 2C projectile points from the Exploits Valley.

Plate 8: Type 3D projectile points from South Exploits (DfAw-07). The upper artifact was found with preforms and European items in an apparent cache pit.

Plate 9: Type 3D projectile point found outside a housepit at Sabbath Point (DeBd-08).

Plate 10: Type 4B projectile point found inside a Beothuk housepit at Sabbath Point (DeBd-08).

Plate 11: Type 4 preform recovered from South Exploits (DfAw-07).

Plate 12: Fur trap similar to those recycled by Beothuk. Arrow points to the pan.

As mentioned earlier, Beothuk positioned their Exploits Valley campsites and honed their iron- recycling abilities in order to maximize their hunting activities, which predominantly focussed on caribou, supplemented by other resources (Locke Field Notes; Schwarz 1993:6). The efficiency of their hunting is evident in the presence of caribou bone in most tested housepits and the recovery of substantial amounts of caribou bone, supplemented by beaver and other inland species, from Indian Point (DeBd-01) and

Wigwam Brook (DfAw-01). Indian Point (DeBd-01) produced 12,682 faunal elements, 10, 529 of which could only be identified as mammal. The other 2134 bone fragments consisted of 2115 (99.1%) woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus), along with 11 (0.51 %) beaver (Castor Canadensis), four (0.2 %) moose and four (0.2 %) from an animal smaller than a fox (Stewart 1971:2, 3). There were at least 28 caribou represented and a late-fall/early winter occupation was suggested (Ibid:4, 20). The moose obviously postdate the Beothuk at Indian Point and can be ignored from the sample.

Wigwam Brook (DfAw-01) produced 19,923 faunal elements, 5556 of which could be identified to family. Almost all, n = 5476 (98.5 %), of the latter consisted of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus), along with 35 (0.6 %) beaver (Castor Canadensis caeator), 23 arctic hare (Lepus arcticus bangsii), two red fox (Vulpes fulva deletrix), three loon (Gavia immer) and two seal teeth (Stewart 1973:3, 5). This sample contained 97 caribou, including 78 adults, which produced 90 % of the meat produced (Ibid:6, 25). The

large faunal collection suggested a year-round Beothuk occupation, but a subsequent review of Beothuk settlement-subsistence data, suggests such a major dependence on caribou is problematic, considering these animals are sometimes unpredictable and prone to population crashes which would have compelled

Beothuk to utilize other inland species or coastal options. The limited substantial alternatives to caribou in interior Newfoundland would have forced Beothuk back to the coast although this would have been challenging at times due to their attempted separation from Europeans (Rowley-Conway 1990:23 - 25).

Beothuk remained active throughout the Bay of Exploits following their exodus to the Exploits

Valley. They killed six European sailors on Exploits Island in 1760 and Cartwright’s 1768 map shows six wigwams on the coast of the Bay of Exploits, three were at the mouth of Charles Brook and the other three were at Indian Point (Howley 1915:27; MG 100.1. Newfoundland Archives). A Beothuk camp was observed in Dildo Run, Notre Dame Bay in 1770 and Beothuk harassed salmon fishermen at the mouth of

Charles Brook that year (Cartwright 1792:4; Howley 1915:49). Beothuk were observed again near Charles

Brook in 1790 and 1791 Marshall 1989:128, 129, 134). Beothuk sabotaged fishing boats on Exploits Island in 1815 and 1818 (Howley 1915:106). A Beothuk man died in 1823 when he fell through the ice in New

Bay and later that year three Beothuk women, including Shanawdithit, her sister and their mother, willingly gave themselves up to historic settlers in Badger Bay when their deteriorating condition forced them to seek help along the coast (Ibid:180). Obviously, Beothuk maintained a connection with the sea coast until late in their history although their visits appear to have been intermittent and unpredictable.

A number of European attempts to peacefully contact them found old wigwams, campsites and trails in the Badger Bay area, but were unsuccessful in meeting any Beothuk.

A final topic in this discussion of the contribution of archaeological data to Beothuk heritage concerns graves. Twenty-nine Beothuk graves have been confirmed at 25 locations, showing three cases of multiple interments. Another 14 Beothuk graves have been reported, but were not substantiated

(Marshall 1996:412, 414, 416). Most of these graves had been found accidentally or otherwise by private

individuals and all were disturbed by the time archaeologists were able to examine them. The disturbance is attributable to human interference and erosion. Given the small amount of Beothuk skeletal material that has been recovered and the strict rules pertaining to scientific studies of them, research has been limited. Despite this, much useful information has been obtained through careful analysis, but similar to the gradual accumulation of historical and archaeological data pertaining to the Beothuk, our understanding of Beothuk health, nutrition and genetics will become more detailed as respectful examination of Beothuk remains continues. For example, an individual grave initially considered to be

Beothuk was radiocarbon date of 549 + 62 before the present (Calibrated A.D. 1311-1443) establishing it as a Little Passage interment. Examination of these remains, which were found on Burnt Island (DjAw-

17), in Pilley’s Tickle, western Notre Dame Bay in 1886, revealed a naturally mummified child, aged five and a half to six years. The deceased had been wrapped in a leather shroud which turned out to be a former legging that had been mended with plant fibre. The presence of moccasins, a male wooden doll, two miniature birch bark canoes, miniature bows and arrows, wooden paddles, small packages of red ochre tied up in birch bark and a package of dried salmon and trout indicated it was a young boy (Jerkic et al 1995). Bone pendants had been attached to the leather shroud, showing that the use of these objects spanned the Ancestral Beothuk and Beothuk periods. The child showed no evidence of pathology or fractures, displacements or cuts. Isotope analysis of bone chemistry revealed that 80 % of the child’s diet came from marine resources, indicating a traditional way of life. An adult Beothuk female subsequently found 15 feet away from the child, on the same rocky shelf, was accompanied by stone arrow heads, a stone dish, an iron axe and an iron knife (Ibid). The European items found next to the adult female showed that Beothuk had re-used this interment location years after the child had been placed there. The reasons for doing so remain unclear.

Examination of another 23 Beothuk graves found no evidence of dietary stress, disease or death by trauma (Jerkic 1993:225). This study did not have access to the remains of Nonosabasut and

Demasduit, which had been removed from their burial hut on Red Indian Lake in 1828 and have only recently been returned to the province. Recent DNA research recorded evidence of physical injury suffered by both people. The trauma exhibited by Demasduit may have occurred after her death, however

(Black et al 2009:666, 671, 673). A burial observed on Indian Island, Hamilton Sound by Dr. Winter in 1834 also recorded evidence of physical trauma, but it is unclear if these remains have survived into the modern era (Lloyd 1876:227). Examination of two Beothuk skeletons from Comfort Island (DiAr-01) estimated their height to be 177 and 180 centimeters, roughly 5’9” and 5’11”. The individuals were noticeably robust and showed heavy muscle attachment (Jerkic 1993:225). These two Beothuk are not necessarily representative of the total population, but they are distinctly taller than the average European male height of 167 centimeters, just under 5’6”” during much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

(Science Daily 2004). There are numerous historical references to the Beothuk as tall, large people although other accounts assign them a medium build (Marshall 1996:336).

Analysis of Beothuk DNA provided significant new information pertaining to Beothuk genealogy and settlement-subsistence behavior. This research, which utilized 151 samples of bone and teeth taken from Maritime Archaic, Palaeo-Inuit and Beothuk skeletons, concluded that Newfoundland and Labrador, following the pattern pertaining to the rest of eastern Canada, had been settled by multiple independent arrivals. Regions were abandoned or suffered local extinctions, or populations constricted before immigration from single, or multiple sources re-populated areas. Distinct Eastern North American First

Nations groups do not share a common ancestry other than an ancient connection closer to the original movement of people into the continent (Duggan et al 2017:1). These findings support other research that concluded the ancestral Beothuk periods saw considerable movement of groups between Newfoundland and the nearby mainland now represented by Labrador and southern Quebec (Hull 2002:4, 40, 84, 91,

103).

The DNA research also included isotope analysis of bone chemistry and radiocarbon dating which tabulated changes in Beothuk diet that corresponded with historically and archaeologically documented alterations to Beothuk settlement-subsistence pursuits. Isotope analysis concluded that the pre-A.D.

1700 Beothuk diet utilized a wider range of protein sources than Dorset Palaeo-Inuit who had a highly specialized marine adaptation (Harris et al 2019:16). The traditional Beothuk diet was still predominantly marine based, however, and often consisted of 20 – 65 % salmon (Ibid:15). The post-A.D. 1700 Beothuk diet included a much larger use of terrestrial protein sources, corresponding with the Beothuk retreat from the coast during the eighteenth century (Ibid:20). The remains of Nonosabasut and Demasduit, who passed away in 1819 and 1820, contained much more terrestrial protein than pre-1700 Beothuk did. In general, varying isotope levels between Beothuk graves was attributed to the non-uniform impact of historic pressures on Beothuk lifeways, once again corroborating a trend observed in historical and archaeological data (Ibid:19).

The low number of Beothuk graves and their restricted distribution provide further evidence of the non-uniform Beothuk cultural activities throughout Newfoundland. Nineteen (76 %) of verified

Beothuk graves are located in Notre Dame Bay, along with three (12 %) from the South Coast, one (4 %) from Bonavista Bay, one (4 %) from the Northern Peninsula and one (4 %) from Red Indian Lake (Marshall

1996:412). Part of the problem in deciphering Beothuk attitudes concerning disposal of their dead is rooted in archaeology which traditionally prefers searching for former living sites, hunting camps, etc., rather than graves. Many of the Beothuk interments were found in caves or under rock overhangs on small exposed islands that offered little incentive for settlement. Given the limited time and resources governing most archaeological surveys, examining such challenging locations is often not among priority objectives. Although the Beothuk population was not large, estimated to be between 500 and 2000, before A.D. 1500, there were 60 to 70 generations of Beothuk and their precontact ancestors whose accrued population numbered in the thousands. The discrepancy between this total and the minimum

39 people accounted for in the confirmed 25 locations suggests that all Beothuk may not have received the same type of interment. It is possible that the majority of Beothuk were cremated, or were buried at sea, or were otherwise dispatched in a manner that is hard to archaeologically detect. The criteria for receiving a particular type of burial remains for now a matter of speculation.

ANTICIPATED RETURNS FROM FURTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INTO BEOTHUK

The preceding discussion shows how our awareness of the complexity of Beothuk culture has grown since the first acknowledged contact between Beothuk and Europeans took place in St. Mary’s Bay in 1606. Many would say that respect for the Beothuk has been nurtured among Newfoundland settlers and others as they obtained a clearer understanding of the Beothuk as a component of Newfoundland’s

6000 year-long human occupation. This includes knowledge of Beothuk settlement-subsistence patterns and the various tools created by Beothuk and utilized in their hunting and gathering pursuits. These data provide a foundation for inferences about Beothuk religion and related ideological matters that are harder to interpret from the archaeological record. Continued research will produce new historical and archaeological data that will to add to our understanding of Beothuk settlement-subsistence, tool use, architecture, and, by inference, ideology, but the most foreseeable imminent insights can be anticipated from archaeology. Table 6 summarizes a list of archaeological sites, survey areas and research questions that through appropriate research promise to significantly update our understanding of the Beothuk

(Figure 12). A number of high potential eroding sites are given top priority as the opportunity to reap their value is steadily diminishing. These sites should be excavated as soon as possible before their untapped relevance to the Beothuk is lost. We can only speculate the specific Beothuk cultural information that has been destroyed at the Beaches (DeAk-01), Stock Cove (CkAl-03), Boom Island (DfAw-

03), South Exploits (DfAw-07), Pope’s Point (DfBa-01), Indian Point (DeBd-01), June’s Cove (DeBd-03) and many additional sites along the shore of Red Indian Lake as well as southern Newfoundland.

Figure 11: DISTRIBUTION OF KEY BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

14 6 5

315

17 7 8

KEY TO FIGURE 11

NORTHEASTERN RED INDIAN LAKE (SEE FIGURE 11A): 1 INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) 2 JUNE’S COVE (DeBd-03) 12 SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) 16 NONOSABASUT AND DEMASDUIT BURIAL (NO BORDEN NUMBER) NIMROD’S POOL (SEE FIGURE 11B): 4 WIGWAM BROOK (DfAw-01) 9 BOOM ISLAND (DfAw-03) 10 ASPEN ISLAND-2 (DfAw-05) 11 SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07) 3 THE BEACHES (DeAk-01) 5 BOYD’S COVE (DiAp-03) 6 INSPECTOR ISLAND (DiAq-01) 7 L’ANSE A’ FLAMME (CjAx-01) 8 RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) 12 SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) 13 FERRYLAND (CgAf-02) 14 BURNT ISLAND (DjAw-17, 18) 15 FOX BAR BURIAL (DeAk-02) 17 RENCONTRE ISLAND (CjBj-02) 18 POPE’S POINT (DfBa-01)

As shown in Table 2, a random sample of 490 Newfoundland First Nations archaeological sites contains

53 cases (10.8 %) that were destroyed by erosion and development. There are 167 (34.1 %) examples of ongoing erosion at sites and another 76 (15.5 %) negatively impacted localities, meaning that 60.4 % of this sample was damaged or destroyed before archaeological excavations could be implemented. Given that archaeologists are inherently limited to interpreting past lifeways from the fraction of a society’s material culture that survives hundreds to thousands of years, the preventable loss of archaeological resources represents a significant threat to our ability to decipher these former behaviors. The high potential archaeological sites, survey areas and prominent research questions are summarized below and in Tables 6A-6D.

FIGURE 11A: NORTHEAST END OF RED INDIAN LAKE

1 2 12

KEY TO FIGURE 11A

1 INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) 2 JUNE’S COVE (DeBd-03) 12 SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) 16 WARFORD’S BROOK – PRESUMED APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DEMASDUIT AND NONOSABASUT’S GRAVE

FIGURE 11B: IMPORTANT BEOTHUK SITES IN NIMROD’S POOL

9 4 11

KEY TO FIGURE 11B

4 WIGWAM BROOK (DfAw-01) 9 BOOM ISLAND (DfAw-03) 10 ASPEN ISLAND-2 (DfAw-05) 11 SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07) DfAw-02 BEAVER ISLAND DfAw-04 ASPEN ISLAND-1 DfAw-06 ASPEN ISLAND-3 N NIMROD’S POOL (DfAw-12) (MI’KMAQ/NEWFOUNDLAND SETTLER)

FIGURE 12: BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND SURVEY AREAS ASSIGNED HIGH RESEARCH POTENTIAL

M (5)

18 9

14 10 3 18 2 45 1 13

19 M

7 6

KEY TO FIGURE 12

1 THE BEACHES (DeAk-01) 2 SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) 3 SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07) 4 NOEL PAUL’S BROOK-4 (DeBb-04) 5 RED INDIAN FALLS-3 (DfBb-02) 6 MELBOURNE SITE (CjBj-01) 7 CORNELIUS SITE (CjBj-07) 8 GRANBY ISLAND (CjBj-10) 9 INDIAN COVE-SOUTH (DhAt-15) 10 SOUTH BANK OF EXPLOITS RIVER OPPOSITE BADGER 11 BADGER BAY WATERSHED 12 BADGER BAY BIG POND (SOUTH TWIN LAKE) AND NEW BAY POND 13 OLD HOUSE SITE (DfAx-04) 14 TWO MILE ISLAND-2 (DfBa-03) AND TWO MILE ISLAND-1 (DfBa-02) 15 INDIAN BAY 16 DILDO RUN 17 BOYD’S COVE (DiAp-03) 18 OUTER BAY OF ISLANDS 19 BAY ST. GEORGE 20 WESTERN RED INDIAN LAKE 21 HARE BAY 22 BONNE BAY 23 ST. MARY’S BAY M MOUNDED COBBLES

Housepit 2 at the Beaches (DeAk-01) is currently eroding and requires immediate salvage excavation (Plate 13). Ancestral Beothuk and Palaeo-Inuit deposits west of the housepit were eroding as of the last archaeological appraisal in 2016 and also require immediate salvage. This site contains the oldest Beothuk housepit on record, meaning that further excavations here will potentially contribute to explaining the Beothuk adoption of housepit architecture during the sixteenth century. The proximity of

Ancestral Beothuk features suggests material representing the transitional period in advance of housepit construction is also extant here. Evidence of early iron recycling at the Beaches is also relevant to the development of this key Beothuk industry.

The single housepit at Sabbath Point (DeBd-08) presents a rare opportunity to excavate an undisturbed housepit in the Exploits Valley (Plate 14). Erosion had advanced to within one meter of the

feature’s outer wall as of September, 2018, meaning that immediate salvage excavation is required. This housepit contains rare architectural attributes, including large raised platforms and an internal storage pit, and has produced a unique Beothuk iron projectile point (Plate 10). A retouched/utilized flake found in its earthen foundation may be related to the Beothuk occupation of the structure, if so it is rare evidence of Beothuk stone tool usage during the late-seventeenth/early nineteenth centuries. Midden deposits identified outside the housepit also appear to be undisturbed, presenting new opportunities to obtain Beothuk subsistence data from sound context, which is an unusual occurrence in the Exploits

Valley.

Plate 13: Excavating the eroding foundation of Housepit 2 at the Beaches (DeAk-01), in 2006.

The South Exploits site (DfAw-07) lies 83 kilometers downstream from Sabbath Point, but the presence of high quality Type 3D projectile points at both locations links these two camps (Plates 8, 9).

The rarity and specific morphologies of the Type 3D items suggests they were possibly manufactured by the same person and their occurrence presents the means of charting the movement of a specific Beothuk

family, or band, during the late eighteenth-early nineteenth century. Stone artifacts and items made from

European materials have been collected from the base of South Exploits’ (DfAw-07) eroding bank, meaning that archaeological resources have been lost here. South Exploits differs from Sabbath Point in having contained eight housepits along with evidence for Ancestral Beothuk and Palaeo-Inuit occupations, representing long-term use as opposed to the relatively concise Sabbath Point habitation. This suggests information specific to the late-period occupation of the Exploits Valley as well as longer term usage of the region.

Plate 14: Don Pelley stands inside the Sabbath Point (DeBd-08) housepit after it had been cleared of vegetation.

Little is known about Noel Paul’s Brook (DeBb-04), compared to some of the other Exploits Valley sites, but the ongoing erosion of this locality means that the chance to learn more of the details relevant to this camp is slipping way. Noel Paul’s Brook-4 (DeBb-04) is part of the Noel Paul’s Brook cluster of

Beothuk sites that were recently classified as containing Late-Period housepits that were occupied between 1781 and 1790 (McLean 2020:31). Excavations at this site will help to confirm, or refute, this assigned date and elaborate on the types of iron projectile points and related tools in use here. Three housepits were recently re-identified at Noel Paul’s Brook-4 (DeBb-04) and excavations are needed to

confirm a fourth tentatively-re-identified example. Possible faunal data obtained through excavation of

Noel Paul’s Brook-4 will also permit comparing subsistence activities for this site cluster with others from the Exploits Valley. It is conceivable that Beothuk occupants of Late Period and Late-Modified Period sites that were placed in previously unused locations were compelled to increase their use of alternative food resources to caribou, assuming that these localities were less suited to large-scale caribou harvests.

Two Mile Island-2 (DfBb-03) contains a unique charcoal-filled pit that is incorporated into a 20.8 m2 boulder platform (McLean 2015c:35, 38). The latter’s outer edge is currently exposed along the top of an eroding 1.5 meter-high bank on Two Mile Island’s north bank. Preliminary excavation of this feature did not produce cultural material so further excavations are required to determine who built it, at what time and for what purpose. A Beothuk housepit located seven to eight meters away at the foot of the bank may be associated with the platform/pit feature. Two Mile-1’s (DfBa-02) housepits, which are distributed along the island’s south side, possibly represent some of the last Beothuk occupations along the Exploits River before they retreated to the Badger Bay watershed (McLean 2014b:49, 50) and Two

Mile-2 (DfBa-03) appears to be closely associated with this site. Excavation of some of Two Mile Island-

1’s housepits is warranted, although they are not imminently threatened by erosion, to assess the possibility that they represent the Beothuk’s retreat from the Exploits River to the more remote Badger

Bay watershed around 1820.

The Ancestral Beothuk/Little Passage occupation of Newfoundland’s South Coast is well- documented and has been the topic of two major research projects (Penney 1984; Rast 1999). The

Beothuk occupation of this coast, despite numerous historic references, is much less understood. This may be largely attributable to erosion which has destroyed at least 11 South Coast archaeological sites and, as of 2009 was undermining 25 others (Table 2). It also possible that Beothuk activity along the South

Coast was rapidly constricted by European fishing and the movement of Mi’kmaq into the region.

Nonetheless, some of the 14 Ancestral Beothuk localities along this coast include stone tools and materials

that suggest a Beothuk presence (Table 1). The Melbourne site (CjBj-01) produced stone projectile points and bifaces indicative of the early Beothuk. Erosion of this site contributed to significant private collecting and the locality may now be completely eroded (Rast 1999:131). Cornelius Island (CjBj-07) produced projectile points and an endscraper made from European ballast flint which obviously was obtained after

1500. A radiocarbon date of 350 + 60 BP (CAL AD 1441-1651) corroborates this claim (Ibid:136, 137).

Granby Island (CjBj-10) predominantly contains Palaeo-Inuit and Ancestral Beothuk material, but an endscraper made from ballast flint, or a gunflint, suggests an early Beothuk component is also present.

This site is eroding, occurs on private property and has been privately collected, meaning that future research may not be feasible (Ibid:139).

A hearth and stone tools recently found inside a housepit-like depression at Indian Cove-South

(DhAt-15), in the Bay of Exploits, requires excavation to determine who is responsible for this feature and if the depression is an early housepit lacking a prominent earthen foundation. This attribute was observed at a number of Exploits Valley sites, suggesting incomplete structures or variations of the typical earthen berm encompassing Beothuk housepits. Confirmation of this feature as a housepit would be the first example of this architecture in the Bay of Exploits. The site’s outer edge was eroding in 2017 when the feature was archaeologically recorded, but the site’s cultural deposits did not appear immediately threatened at that time (McLean 2017e:25, 26). This remains a provocative research location, however.

Excavation of Housepit 2 at Red Indian Falls-3 (DfBb-02) is proposed to examine another housepit and site that are possibly part of a network that also includes Sabbath Point (DeBd-08), South Exploits

(DfAw-07) and Indian Point (DeBd-01). RIF-3’s Housepit 2 has the same interior platforms that were recorded at South Exploits and Indian Point’s B5 housepit, while the presence of 1030 glass trade beads inside Housepit 2 are a material link with an apparent cache of trade beads, high quality iron projectile points and an eclectic selection of European objects at South Exploits (DfAw-07). These items suggest occupations between 1809 and 1820, or slightly later. Red Indian Falls-3 (DfBb-02) and Red Indian Falls-2

(DfBb-04) both occur on a terrace that is nine meters above the Exploits River, suggesting a late Beothuk adjustment to their housepit positioning designed to hide them from Europeans and otherwise increase their defensibility. Excavations are proposed for Housepit 2 and at additional features at both upper terrace sites to derive other late-Beothuk reactions to an especially stressful interval. Recovering faunal material would facilitate evaluating the quality of Beothuk life at these relatively challenging locations.

Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03) was the subject of five large-scale excavations during the 1980s which produced much information about a large Beothuk settlement that was not bothered by European activity throughout much of its occupation. Data recovered from five housepits indicate they were occupied between 1650 and 1720. Excavation of additional housepits here are advocated as a test for possible earlier, or later habitations. A Beaches complex hearth was found under the earthen foundation of

Housepit 3, but additional Ancestral Beothuk features have not been detected outside the housepits as they have at the Beaches (DeAk-01), Inspector Island (DiAq-01), Boom Island (DfAw-03), Aspen Island-2

(DfAw-05) and South Exploits (DfAw-07) (Pastore 1985:323). Test excavations are proposed to check for the presence of additional Ancestral Beothuk features at Boyd’s Cove.

A housepit identified at the Old House site (DfAx-04) appears to be part of the Beothuk camp that covertly watched Buchan’s group carrying Demasduit’s remains to Red Indian Lake during the winter of

1820. Shanawdithit reported that 27 people occupied three mamateeks in this camp. A sketch she drew for Cormack shows another single structure stood on the opposite (south) side of the river (Marshall

1996:170). Previous archaeological reconnaissance of the Old House site (DfAx-04) noted a number of other possible housepits in addition to the obvious feature (McLean 2014c:44). Archaeological surveying and testing are needed to assess the presence or absence of additional housepits at this site and on the opposite side of the river. Partial excavation of one, or more, of the site’s housepits will provide structural information as well as showing the types of tools used at this camp and the selection of game procured.

The Old House site (DfAx-04) location suggests less favourable conditions for harvesting caribou, meaning

that meat from the latter was curated to here or other food options were utilized. The recovery of animal remains and seeds through excavation will elaborate on subsistence activities undertaken at this site.

Conducting archaeological surveys in previously unexamined, or minimally tested, areas, often where Beothuk occupations are historically reported will help to determine if the minimal amount of

Beothuk activity currently indicated for certain areas is accurately depicted. John Cartwright, in 1768, mapped nine Beothuk structures at three locations on the Exploits River’s south bank, opposite Badger

Brook. A search for precontact archaeological material in this area identified three insubstantial sites, but did not locate any housepits (Schwarz 1993:30). Comprehensive survey of the river bank between Two

Mile Island and Slaughter Island is proposed. David Buchan, in 1811 observed that the Beothuk preferred to travel along ponds and streams of the Badger Bay watershed, rather than the lower Exploits River, as a route to the sea coast (Marshall 1996:149). Shanawdithit mapped the locations of a number of Beothuk camps used between 1820 and 1823 along waterways in the Badger Bay watershed (Ibid:170). Cormack, in 1828 recorded the presence of a prominent portage station on the northwest end of Badger Bay Big

Pond, now South Twin Lake, and a large Beothuk village near this area, or on New Bay Pond (Howley

1915:190) (Figure 13). None of the Badger Bay watershed/New Bay Pond sites have been archaeologically verified. Comprehensive survey is proposed to examine this region. Identification of sites would be informative concerning late Beothuk activities, as well as possibly showing evidence for pre-Beothuk usage. Excavation of confirmed late-Beothuk occupations would produce evidence of their terminal activities, including the possibilities that survivors migrated to Labrador or merged with other

Newfoundland communities.

As mentioned earlier, despite the presence of Ancestral Beothuk sites throughout Western

Newfoundland and historic references to Beothuk in Hare Bay, Bonne Bay and Bay St. George, Beothuk archaeological material has not been found along the western coast. Therefore, archaeological surveys are advocated for parts of this region. The entrance to the Bay of Islands should be checked for Beothuk

FIGURE 13: BADGER BAY WATERSHED AREA TO BE ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SURVEYED

BADGER BAY WATERSHED SURVEY AREA

POSSIBLE LOCATIONS OF LARGE BEOTHUK VILLAGE SEEN BY CORMACK

material as a Little Passage occupation was identified at the Childes site (DgBo-1) on the south side of the channel (Plate 3). A review of archaeological data, including artifact analysis, pertaining to the north side of the Bay of Islands entrance does not corroborate previous identification of a Beothuk component near

Cox’s Cove. Archaeological survey is also proposed for St. Mary’s Bay where Beothuk reportedly traded with Dutch people in 1606. It is speculated that these Beothuk may have subsequently bartered with John

Guy in 1612 at All Hallows, Trinity Bay (Marshall 1996:39). St. Mary’s Bay is also closer to Ferryland, which contains a late-sixteenth-century Beothuk site, than Trinity Bay is, raising the possibility that Beothuk travelled from the former, rather than the latter. Comprehensive survey of the western end of Red Indian

Lake is also recommended to check for historically reported Beothuk sites and additional archaeological resources (Ibid:145, 146, 170). The Red Indian Lake shoreline has suffered significant erosion since a dam was built across the outflow to the Exploits River in 1909, but the discovery of the Sabbath Point (DeBd-

08) housepit in 2016 showed that important archaeological resources had survived (McLean 2017b:26).

Whether there are any more extant unidentified archaeological deposits remains to be seen.

Research questions also remain unanswered in previously surveyed regions, including Indian Bay, in Bonavista Bay, and Dildo Run, in Notre Dame Bay. Although Indian Bay’s name readily suggests a

Beothuk or Mi’kmaq presence, these cultures were not identified among 42 components distributed over

33 archaeological sites there (McLean 2009:56). Excavation of some of the 23 components classified as

Unknown First Nations is proposed to check for possible diagnostic Beothuk, or other identifiable material.

Although Dildo Run contains the important Boyd’s Cove and Inspector Island sites, additional Beothuk material has not been found among its 37 other components which occur at 26 sites. Excavations of two identified possible Beothuk occupations and some of Dildo Run’s 10 Unknown First Nations sites are proposed to check for additional Beothuk cultural material. Tentative Beothuk occupations have also been discovered near the Beaches site (DeAk-01), but require more extensive examination in order to clearly identify their occupants and establish their relationship with the Beaches base camp.

The small number of known Beothuk graves was discussed earlier. A number of recent surveys recorded the presence of mounds of cobbles that are appropriately sized for containing human remains

(Table 9) (Figure 12). It is proposed that these features be respectfully partially disassembled to check for possible remains and associated artifacts. This report does not recommend prompt excavation of human burials, any such discovered materials could be photographed and have all visual data recorded without removing anything. The Provincial Archaeology Office and any associated First Nations band, or other directly affiliated group would be immediately notified of the discovery. The grave would be reburied and the possibility of future excavation/research would be discussed with concerned parties at the appropriate time.

The declining Beothuk population throughout the historic period means that distinct artifact morphologies and, by extension, associated mental templates are more closely linked to individual manufacturers than they normally would be. For example, it is conceivable that the three Type 3D projectile points and one preform may have been made by the same person, meaning that the distribution of these objects possibly represents his, or her, movement throughout the valley. Even if some of these items were made by the same person who traded them or shared them with his fellow band members, their distribution is still potentially relevant to settlement-subsistence patterns over time and space.

Similarly the presence of four housepits manifesting a similar distinct morphology, namely the presence of wide inner shelves similar to sleeping platforms, at four Exploits Valley sites suggest the preference of an individual house builder who moved about the valley during the Late-Modified Period of housepit construction, spanning 1790-1829. It is also noteworthy that raised sleeping platforms inside housepits are a diagnostic Inuit architectural trait in the Labrador Straits, raising the possibility that Beothuk adopted this feature from Inuit people (Beudoin et al 2010:165). The remains of Inuit sod houses have been archaeologically identified on both sides of the Strait of Belle Isle (Stopp2015:65). It is tempting to speculate that Tom June, the Beothuk male who lived with European settlers on Fogo Island, but regularly

visited his relatives in interior Newfoundland, suggested this housepit modification to the latter (Marshall

1996:124). The mobility of Tom June can help explain another unique Beothuk artifact. The only amak, or snowshoe needle, found at a Beothuk site was recently recovered through excavations at June’s Cove

(DeBd-03). June could have easily carried this small object inland after he acquired it from Inuit on the northeast coast (Plate 15).

Plate 15: Copper amak (snowshoe needle) found at June's Cove (DeBd-03) in 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

Our concept of Beothuk culture has largely been derived from historical, archaeological and related scientific information. These data show that the Beothuk were a component of Newfoundland’s

6000 year-long sequence of human occupations that consisted of immigration into the region, followed by extinction, or drastic population reduction, with successive re-population by new immigrants. The reasons for these fluctuating populations are, for the most part, unknown and details of the processes are scant, but this is at least partially attributable to the antiquity of the events. Access to historical information pertaining to the Beothuk, although limited in quantity compared to many contemporaneous groups, in addition to archaeological data, permits the opportunity for sharper analysis of the Beothuk than is possible for some of Newfoundland’s older cultures. It should be noted that although there are

obvious parallels between the different cultural periods, it is expected that continued research will show significant variation throughout the determinant factors for each interval.

All of Newfoundland’s different cultural periods involved contact between a resident population and a foreign group, or groups. When the Beothuk’s earliest direct ancestors, who are archaeologically defined as the Beaches complex, moved into Newfoundland from the North American mainland about

2000 years ago, they discovered the island was already inhabited by people that were subsequently named Groswater Palaeo-Inuit. These people were soon replaced by the Dorset culture who for many generations shared Newfoundland with the Beaches complex and the Little Passage complex which in turn succeeded the Beaches complex. The Palaeo-Inuit preferred living along the outer coastline while the Ancestral Beothuk mainly kept to the inner coast and both groups intermittently ventured into the island’s interior. There appears to have been a degree of contact between the Ancestral Beothuk and

Palaeo-Inuit people, but they mostly avoided each other until the Dorset disappeared around 1200 years ago. The Little Passage then had Newfoundland to themselves, except for brief visits from Labrador Innu and Labrador Inuit, plus, eventually, Mi’kmaq from the east. Some of the Little Passage people, or their ancestors, may have contacted Norse setters in northern Newfoundland around 1000 AD, but the advent of the European migratory fishery following Cabot’s 1497 trip to northeastern North America constituted a massive foreign presence that was much harder to contend with than were the other brief foreign stopovers.

Members of the Little Passage complex initially observed the activities of migratory fishery and decided how to respond to the influx of newcomers. The Little Passage reaction, or reactions from a regional perspective, included modified behavior and changes in their toolkits that were implemented between 1500 and 1829, or slightly later, providing a list of attributes that were eventually referred to as

Beothuk. Although the Little Passage/Beothuk are often referred to as a widespread singular entity, their society consisted of largely autonomous bands that were distributed along Newfoundland’s extensive

coastline and, to a lesser degree, the island’s interior. This resulted in a complex interplay of observations and reactions, which varied throughout Newfoundland, to an influx of newcomers from a number of different cultures. Although continued research will produce a more detailed story of this culture contact, current data show that the demise of Little Passage/Beothuk people began on Newfoundland’s west coast and south coast where the migratory fishery was born. Little Passage/Beothuk had disappeared from

Newfoundland’s west coast before they had time to learn how to recycle European iron into projectile points and before they adopted housepits, two of the key diagnostic Beothuk characteristics. Eighteenth- century references to Beothuk on the West Coast have not been archaeologically verified, meaning that the Little Passage/Beothuk were restrained by historic activity there or the people in question were

Mi’kmaq or Innu. Similarly, nineteenth century references to Beothuk on the Northern Peninsula possibly represent fanciful observations or a small group of late Beothuk survivors whose activities are hard to archaeologically detect, or they refer to non-Beothuk people.

Little Passage/Beothuk people also disappeared from Newfoundland’s south coast with only sparse archaeological evidence for historic period activity. A few sites show stone tools made from

European ballast flint and graves in Placentia Bay include European materials among their artifacts, but there is no evidence of modified iron or housepits in this area. Many South Coast archaeological sites have been seriously damaged, or destroyed, by erosion due to rising sea level which limits our ability to interpret Little Passage/Beothuk activity there, but the very low frequency of diagnostic Beothuk attributes suggests the local Little Passage/Beothuk remained inherently traditional until they disappeared during the late seventeenth century. Little Passage/Beothuk based in Trinity Bay similarly persevered until late in the seventeenth century without adopting the use of housepits or seriously considering replacing their stone tools with modified iron alternatives. A small amount of modified iron and an assortment of European goods has been recovered from Trinity Bay, but like their friends and relatives living on the south and west coasts, these Beothuk retained strongly traditional settlement-

subsistence activities that eventually became ineffective, leading to death and possibly migration of a few survivors out of these regions.

Little Passage/Beothuk living in Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay benefitted from the absence of migratory fishery activity and associated European pursuits for almost 200 years. Furthermore, these people resided within extensive archipelagoes whose uncharted waters were an additional deterrent to

European sailors. These northeastern Little Passage/Beothuk, despite their relative isolation, would have heard about early migratory fishery activity from their fellow citizens based on the south and west coasts during traditional interactions with other bands as long as they could freely move along the coastline or through the interior. The northeastern Little Passage/Beothuk may have experienced limited contact with

European explorers along their outer coasts and with fishermen en route to Fogo Island and the Labrador

Straits. At any rate, Beothuk living at the Beaches site (DeAk-01), in Bonavista Bay, took early defensive measures against the European invasion. They were building housepits by the latter half of the sixteenth century, apparently opting for warmer shelter in conjunction with increased harp seal hunting during the late winter/early spring. This enabled them to lessen their reliance on birds and other marine resources normally harvested in the summer, thereby providing the means of optimizing their summertime movements and avoiding Europeans when they felt this was necessary.

While housepit construction and evidence for modified subsistence activity at the Beaches site shows Beothuk were wary of Europeans in Bonavista Bay, they were not adverse to using their materials, perhaps indicating the conflicting attitude of some Beothuk towards the European newcomers. European pottery, glass fragments, a lead weight and Beothuk modified iron artifacts were recovered, along with traditional stone tools, bone pendant fragments and extensive faunal remains, from the Beaches housepits. A similar list of items, including many more iron projectile points and preforms, were recovered from a Beothuk grave located 1.5 kilometers from the Beaches. Beothuk appear to have occupied the

Beaches until the mid-eighteenth century when increased European salmon fishing, trapping and

lumbering throughout the inner bay hampered their subsistence activities. These Beothuk died out or a few of them may have moved to more remote areas that have not been archaeologically detected.

Beothuk based in Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03), Notre Dame Bay, 140 kilometers northwest from the

Beaches site (DeAk-01), had a similar reaction to historic influences. By 1650, the Boyd’s Cove occupants were building much larger than normal housepits and were producing many more iron projectile points than they did in Bonavista Bay. Excavations at Boyd’s Cove concluded that these Beothuk, for a time, enjoyed many of the potential benefits of life during the historic period. The site’s large faunal sample was evidence for highly successful hunting which implied freedom of movement and the employment of an efficient tool kit made up of traditional objects plus iron projectile points. The presence of trade beads, assorted other European goods and forge-modified nails at Boyd’s Cove suggested Beothuk were trading with Europeans at, or near, the site. The positioning of highly visible large houses at Boyd’s Cove may have even facilitated a willingness to trade with Europeans. Unfortunately, this florescence did not last and Boyd’s Cove’s large prominent houses were replaced by smaller, less conspicuous ones early in the eighteenth century and around 1720 the site was abandoned. Some of the Boyd’s Cove evacuees set up camp on Inspector Island (DiAq-01), in a deeper part of Notre Dame Bay, but the growing wave of

European salmon fishermen, fur trappers and loggers soon forced them from here.

The Notre Dame Bay Beothuk took recourse in the Exploits Valley, a 250 kilometer-long channel, consisting of the Exploits River, Red Indian Lake and Lloyd’s River. Numerous subsidiary streams and rivers branch from the main waterway, constituting a widespread interior network that had been sporadically utilized by many generations of precontact First Nations people. Variably-sized groups may have ventured inland to procure caribou and/or beaver, along with other terrestrial resources, during times of coastal shortages. Other expeditions may have been interested in exploration during less stressful periods. Red

Indian Lake is located 118 kilometers from the Bay of Exploits and is accessible over a similar distance, shorter in some instances, via connected waterways from other parts of the Newfoundland coast, raising

the possibility that Beothuk from the West Coast and South Coast ultimately migrated to this deep interior location which lay beyond European interests for many years and where there was a good potential for encountering other Beothuk. There is no evidence to date, however, that different bands of late-period

Beothuk merged in the deep interior, but this is worthy of future research.

When the Notre Dame Bay Beothuk retreated to the Exploits Valley around 1730 they began building housepits at many of the sites that they and their ancestors had previously occupied. The widespread construction of caribou fences by Beothuk along the Exploits River and Red Indian Lake during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is indicative of large-scale cooperative hunting as they attempted to lessen their use of coastal resources. They built a variety of housepits in the interior, a few were larger than the biggest coastal examples, but most were smaller as might be expected for a diminishing population. The expansion of European salmon fishing, fur trapping and logging during the eighteenth century gradually forced these Beothuk to set up camps in deeper inland locations at sites that had not been previously used by their ancestors, suggesting less desirable settings for harvesting caribou and other interior resources. The terminal phase of the Beothuk’s intensified Exploits Valley occupation saw the construction of housepits on high terraces and at increased distances from large waterbodies at previously unused localities as well as at traditionally popular sites as Beothuk sought protection from

Europeans who by then were familiar with the deep interior. The final interval of housepit usage, dubbed the Late-Modified Period, includes some of the largest Beothuk structures and has the largest average size per five housepit temporal categories. This is attributable to the incorporation of numerous decimated families within one household. Some of these people may have originated from other bands whose survivors had sought assistance from other Beothuk in the deep interior following their gradual retreat from coastal regions via local inland waterways. The presence of an iron projectile point from

Sandy Lake amongst the inland sample of Beothuk artifacts, which was primarily obtained from the

Exploits Valley, provides evidence of Beothuk activity at a parallel river system extending from the West

Coast to northwestern Notre Dame Bay.

Gaps in this summary of Beothuk culture are partly attributable to the limited amount of historical data about the Beothuk and challenge of obtaining sufficient archaeological information. The latter is dependent on the availability and accessibility of a sufficient number of sites, along with a large and diverse sample of artifacts. Additional information can be expected from continued archaeological excavations. Carefully-designed surveys, ideally leading to excavations, would provide a clearer picture of the fate of the Little Passage/Beothuk who lived along Newfoundland’s coast outside of Notre Dame

Bay. There is no evidence that these people implemented a major residential shift as occurred in Notre

Dame Bay although all regions have recourse to inland waterways. It is possible that smaller-scale migrations occurred, consisting of a small group who temporarily lived inland in a near-coastal environment, or slightly beyond, before sustained pressures forced survivors further inland.

Continued Beothuk research should provide finer resolution of specific topics. For instance, studies of Beothuk artifacts and behavior are accentuating the potential roles of individuals within this shrinking population. The prominence and low number of high-quality Type 3D iron projectile points suggests that three complete items and one preform may have been produced by the same person. If so, the distribution of these items, along with specific iron by-products and tools associated with the manufacturing process, provide an opportunity to evaluate the movement of this individual, or at least the extent of his distribution network. Similarly, the occurrence of rare housepit morphologies in restricted time and space may be indicative of an individual mental template. Careful excavation of particular housepits are needed to assess this possibility.

Concerning the resolution of archaeological interpretation, it is noteworthy that archaeological inquiry has accumulated detailed information for 86 housepits, thousands of artifacts, thousands of faunal

elements and insights into their use of plants. These data constitute evidence for Beothuk life, but do not explain why the indicated resources, which obviously were often plentiful, were insufficient for Beothuk to survive. It would help if researchers could determine the number of people that were contained in a given camp at a specific time. Although this can be a challenging research goal, it should be at the forefront of continued archaeological inquiry. Possibly future archaeological surveys will uncover sites where food remains and tools are not as plentiful, suggesting a less successful existence than is suggested by most Beothuk sites to date. Similarly, it is interesting that the majority of Beothuk graves contain healthy robust people, which, along with the low number of interments suggests Beothuk selectively handled their dead. Detection and respectful analysis of undisturbed burials are needed to elaborate on this question.

Some of the answers to these questions can be obtained through further historical and archaeological research. While new historical data may be anticipated from unknown sources, there are a host of tangible opportunities to procure original archaeological information whenever funding concerns and legal protocols are met. Furthermore, many archaeological sites in Newfoundland are currently eroding or have suffered from natural deterioration and/or human disturbance. This report lists

18 archaeological sites that have especially contributed to Beothuk heritage. Three (16.7 %) of these,

Boyd’s Cove (DiAp-03), Russells’ Point (CiAj-01) and Ferryland (CgAf-02), are reasonably intact. Pope’s

Point (DfBa-01), within the town of Badger is completely destroyed as is the former grave of Nonosabasut and Demasduit on Red Indian Lake. The disturbed remnants of the Fox Bar burial (DeAk-02) were collected in 1973, constituting a third important site that no longer exists. Nine (50 %) of the 18 important Beothuk sites are eroding and have also incurred other disturbance, two (11.1 %) others are eroding and another four (22.2 %) were disturbed by private interests. The threatened status of these important sites warrants immediate salvage excavation in order to collect important information before the opportunities are lost.

This report lists 10 eroding sites that are assigned high potential for containing important new

Beothuk information. There is an urgent need to attend to these sites. Three high potential sites, Boyd’s

Cove (DiAp-03), Indian Cove-South (DhAt-15) and Two Mile Island-1 (DfBa-02), are relatively intact but are listed as priority research subjects in consideration of their anticipated specific heritage value. Excavation of some of the 33 Unknown First Nations components identified through surveys in Dildo Run, in Notre

Dame Bay, and Indian Bay, in Bonavista Bay, is proposed to clarify the somewhat understated Beothuk presence in these regions. These localities include a number of eroding and otherwise threatened examples that suggest practical targets for salvage excavations. Excavation of additional Unknown First

Nations components can then be implemented as needed to obtain a representative sample of this category per region. Finally, in consideration of the challenge in finding new cases of human interment, careful and respectful examination of eight earthen/cobble mounds is proposed. This investigation would proceed according to guidelines established by concerned parties. Significant new Beothuk information can be expected from many of the aforementioned research projects. It is suggested that an appropriate scale of research be employed to obtain these data and avoid further loss on non-replaceable archaeological resources.

TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF A RANDOM SAMPLE OF BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS/SITES

COASTAL SITES MA PI RI BEO ? A NS/BEO NS/MM MM NS ? TOTAL TOTAL COMPONENTS SITES TRINITY BAY 5 5 4 4 8 1 27 14

BONAVISTA BAY (12) (36) (9) (10) (65) (47) (179) (148) PLATE COVE HEAD 3 6 1 5 12 27 24 THE REACHES 7 6 13 13 FAIR ISLANDS, INDIAN BAY 1 6 24 14 45 33 TRINITY BAY, BB 6 8 3 17 16 BHF 8 17 7 9 19 10 70 56 OTHER 1 1 1 2 2 7 6

CAPE FREELS 5 5 3 1 7 5 26 13 FOGO ISLAND 2 1 4 6 13 12

NOTRE DAME BAY (25) (55) (13) (16) (61) (1) (2) (3) (53) (28) (257) (202) BAY OF EXPLOITS 9 19 5 12 24 1 24 16 110 87 DILDO RUN 2 14 2 2 10 8 38 28 NEW WORLD ISLAND-WEST 1 9 1 3 14 14 GREEN BAY 9 18 5 2 16 14 12 76 60 HALL’S BAY 5 3 1 2 2 2 4 19 13

WHITE BAY 2 2 5 4 13 9

L’ANSE AUX MEADOWS 1 1 1(NORSE) 3 1

WEST COAST (4) (2) (4) (12) (22) (18) BAY OF ISLANDS 1 1 4 11 17 14 PORT AU PORT 3 1 1 5 4

SOUTH COAST (7) (29) (14) (5) (33) (1) (28) (1) (118) (98) PIPER’S HOLE 1 7 1 3 12 11 RAMEA ISLANDS 6 10 16 14 “SOUTH COAST” 6 21 14 3 14 10 1 69 55 PLACENTIA BAY 1 8 1 6 5 21 18

FERRYLAND 1 1 2 1 TOTAL COASTAL 58 138 46 37 179 1 3 3 165 30 660 516

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED): DISTRIBUTION OF A RANDOM SAMPLE OF BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS/SITES

INTERIOR SITES MA PI RI BEO ? A NS/BEO NS/MM MM NS ? TOTAL TOTAL COMPONENTS SITES GAMBO POND 1 2 4 14 21 18 GANDER RIVER 1 1 2 2 EXPLOITS VALLEY 8 9 7 35 23 3 2 87 61 INDIAN POND 4 4 4 SOUTHERN LAKE 3 3 3 WEST POND 1 1 1 SANDY LAKE 1 1 1 BIRCHY LAKE 3 3 1 4 11 9 HUMBER VALLEY 2 1 3 2 KING GEORGE IV POND 1 1 1 AVALON ISTHMUS 1 1 1 3 2 TOTAL INTERIOR 14 16 16 37 49 3 2 137 104 TOTAL COASTAL 58 138 46 37 170 1 3 3 165 30 660 516 TOTAL 72 154 62 74 219 1 6 3 167 30 797 620

TABLE 2: FREQUENCY OF EROSION/DISTURBANCE/STABILITY AT A RANDOM SAMPLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

REGION STABLE ? CABIN/ ERODING DESTROYED DISTURBED FLOODED OVERGROWN TOTAL STABLE? TRINITY BAY 3 5 3 2 13

BURNSIDE HERITAGE FOUNDATION INC. 20 32 4 56 PLATE COVE 11 1 6 2 3 1 24 THE REACHES 11 2 13 TRINITY BAY (BONAVISTA BAY) 6 10 16 FAIR ISLANDS 12 19 2 33 OTHER 1 1

BONAVISTA BAY TOTAL 60 (42.0) 1 (0.7) 69 (48.3) 3 (2.1) 9 (6.3) 1 (0.7) 143 CAPE FREELS 1 1 10 1 13 FOGO ISLAND 2 6 8

DILDO RUN (12.41) 2 6 8 DILDO RUN (13.21) 10 10 DILDO RUN (14.43) 1 1 2 DILDO RUN (16.23) 1 1 DILDO RUN (PRE-2012) 1 2 3 S0UTH SAMSON ISLAND 4 4 VALLEY POND/NEW WORLD ISLAND 6 8 14 HALL’S BAY 8 2 1 2 13 GREEN BAY 17 16 33 BAY OF EXPLOITS 8 1 8 5 22 NOTRE DAME BAY TOTAL 58 (52.7) 1 (0.9) 27 (24.6) 1 (0.9) 23 (20.9) 110

LITTLE CONEY ARM 5 (41.7) 3 (25.0) 3 (25.0) 1 (8.3) 12 WESTPORT 3 3 WHITE BAY TOTAL 5 (33.3) 3 (20.0) 3 (20.0) 4 (26.7) 15

BAY OF ISLANDS 1 10 3 14

PIPER’S HOLE 1 9 1 11 RAMEA ISLANDS 13 1 14 SOUTH COAST 1 10 16 9 19 55 SOUTH COAST TOTAL 15 10 25 11 19 80 TOTAL 145 (36.6) 22 (5.6) 1 (0.3) 142 (35.9) 28 (7.1) 57 (14.4) 1 (0.3) 0 396(100.1)

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED): FREQUENCY OF EROSION/DISTURBANCE/STABILITY AT A RANDOM SAMPLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND INLAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

REGION STABLE ? CABIN/ ERODING DESTROYED DISTURBED FLOODED OVERGROWN TOTAL STABLE? AVALON ISTHMUS 1 1 2 GAMBO POND 1 1 1 11 4 18 GANDER RIVER 1 1 2 EXPLOITS VALLEY 19 1 17 12 4 4 57 INDIAN POND 3 1 4 SANDY LAKE 1 4 2 2 9 HUMBER VALLEY 2 2 TOTAL INTERIOR 22 (23.4) 3 (3.2) 1 (1.1) 25 (26.6) 25 (26.6) 13 (13.8) 1 (1.1) 4 (4.3) 94 (100.1) TOTAL COASTAL 145 (36.6) 22 (5.6) 1 (0.3) 142 (35.9) 28 (7.1) 57 (14.4) 1 (0.3) 0 396 (100.2) TOTAL 167 (34.1) 25 (5.1) 2 (0.4) 167 (34.1) 53 (10.8) 70 (14.3) 2 (0.4) 4 (0.0.8) 490 (100)

BEOTHUK BURIALS 25 25

TABLE 3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINING BEOTHUK CULTURE

SITE SIGNIFICANCE INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) - THE FIRST LARGE BEOTHUK VILLAGE REPORTED BY EUROPEANS, ALBEIT VACANT AT THE TIME (JOHN CARTWRIGHT, 1768) - PRESENCE OF THIS LARGE INLAND SETTLEMENT WAS REPORTED BY THE BEOTHUK TOM JUNE WHO LIVED WITH EUROPEANS ON FOGO ISLAND - SIMILAR TO THE BEACHES SITE AND OTHER LOCALITIES (SEE BELOW), INDIAN POINT WAS OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT FIRST NATIONS DURING NUMEROUS MILLENNIA IN ADVANCE OF THE BEOTHUK; INDIAN POINT APPARENTLY WAS INTERMITTENTLY UTILIZED OVER THE LONG TERM, COMPARED TO THE BEACHES - SITE HAS BEEN SEVERELY COMPROMISED BY EROSION, DEVELOPMENT AND LOOTING; IT REMAINS THREATENED JUNE’S COVE (DeBd-03) - CLOSE PROXIMITY, 50 METERS, TO INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) SUGGESTS THE TWO SITES CONSTITUTED THE JUNE’S COVE SETTLEMENT SEEN BY CARTWRIGHT IN 1768, BEFORE SUFFERING DAMAGE FROM EROSION AND DEVELOPMENT - A HIGHER NUMBER OF IRON PROJECTILE POINTS AND ASSOCIATED IRON CAME FROM JUNE’S COVE, COMPARED TO INDIAN POINT - THE SITE WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY DESTROYED BY EROSION AND LOOTING AND EROSION IS ONGOING THE BEACHES (DeAk-01) - ONE OF THE FIRST IDENTIFIED FORMER BEOTHUK COASTAL VILLAGES AT A LARGE MULT-COMPONENT SITE - CONTAINS THE FIRST HOUSEPITS BUILT BY BEOTHUK, ONE DATES TO 390 +/- 70 BEFORE PRESENT (AD 1454- 1604) - HAS AN ASSOCIATED BURIAL, THE FOX BAR BURIAL (DeAk-02), USED TWICE BY BEOTHUK, 1.5 KM AWAY (SEE BELOW) - SITE IS SEVERELY DAMAGED BY EROSION, WHICH IS ONGOING, AND LOOTING; IMMEDIATE SALVAGE EXCAVATION AND MONITORING ARE ADVOCATED - THIS SITE IS THE INSPIRATION FOR THE BEACHES COMPLEX TITLE, REPRESENTING THE BEOTHUK’S EARLIEST DIRECT ANCESTORS IN NEWFOUNDLAND POPE’S POINT (DfBa-01) - AN IMPORTANT INLAND MULTI-COMPONENT SITE USED BY BEOTHUK AND INTERMITTENTLY BY PREVIOUS VISITORS - SITE IS AT THE GATEWAY TO AN OPTIONAL ROUTE TO NEWFOUNDLAND’S NORTH COAST FROM THE EXPLOITS VALLEY, PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE TO TRAVELLING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE EXPLOITS RIVER - SITE WAS MOSTLY DESTROYED BY EROSION, DEVELOPMENT AND LOOTING BEFORE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY WAS POSSIBLE; SITE IS NOW COMPLETELY DESTROYED

TABLE 3 (CONTINUED): ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINING BEOTHUK CULTURE

SITE SIGNIFICANCE POPE’S POINT (DfBa-01) - IMPORTANT POTENTIAL INFORMATION REMAINS AT FOUR NEARBY SITES AND AT ARCHAEOLOGICALLY (CONTINUED) UNIDENTIFIED SITES THAT WERE HISTORICALLY REPORTED ALONG THE OPPOSITE (SOUTH) BANK OF THE EXPLOITS RIVER (SEE TABLE 6) WIGWAM BROOK (DfAw- - LARGE INLAND BEOTHUK VILLAGE, UNOFFICIALLY REPORTED AS THE LARGEST AGGREGATION OF BEOTHUK 01) HOUSEPITS (N = 29) - PRE-BEOTHUK OCCUPATIONS ARE SUGGESTED HERE, BUT WERE MUCH LESS INTENSIVE THAN OCCURRED AT THE BEACHES, INDIAN POINT, POPE’S POINT, BOYD’S COVE AND OTHER LARGE MULTI-COMPONENT SITES - SITE WAS DAMAGED BY FOREST GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND LOOTING - AT LEAST SIX HOUSEPITS AND AN UNDETERMINED NUMBER OF EXTERNAL FEATURES ARE EXTANT BOYD’S COVE (DiAp-03) - LARGE UNDISTURBED BEOTHUK/MULTI-COMPONENT SITE LOCATED ON THE COAST OF NOTRE DAME BAY CONTAINS 11 BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS, ALONG WITH EXTERNL FEATURES - EXCAVATION OF PARTS OF FIVE HOUSEPITS AND EXTERIOR AREAS PRODUCED A LARGE FAUNAL SAMPLE AND A DIVERSE TOOLKIT CONSISTING OF TRADITIONAL MATERIALS COMBINED WITH EUROPEAN ALTERNATIVES - ARTIFACTS SHOW STRONG BEOTHUK ENDORSEMENT OF ARROW HEADS AND SPEAR HEADS RECYCLED FROM EUROPEAN IRON, PRIMARILY NAILS - GLASS TRADE BEADS, OTHER EUROPEAN ITEMS AND NAILS THAT HAD BEEN WORKED IN A EUROPEAN FORGE PROVIDE TENTATIVE EVIDENCE OF BEOTHUK TRADING WITH EUROPEANS DURING OCCUPANCY OF THE SITE - THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA INDICATE A BRIEF FLORESENCE OF BEOTHUK CULTURE ON THE EVE OF THEIR FINAL RETREAT FROM A PREDOMINANTLY COASTAL EXISTENCE - THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE OF SHORT-TERM, PERHAPS UNPREDICTABLE RETURN VISITS TO THE SITE FOLLOWING ITS ABANDONMENT AROUND A.D. 1720 INSPECTOR ISLAND (DiAq- - FORMER SATELLITE CAMP USED BY HUNTERS FROM BOYD’S COVE 01) - THREE HOUSEPITS SUGGEST BEOTHUK OCCUPATION FOLLOWING THE ABANDONMENT OF BOYD’S COVE AROUND 1720 - PRE-BEOTHUK USE, INCLUDING A SIGNIFICANT LITTLE PASSAGE COMPONENT, OCCURRED AT THE SITE - DAMAGED BY EROSION AND HISTORIC SETTLER ACTIVITIES; THREAT HAS NOT ABATED - POSSIBLE LOCATION OF AN OCCUPIED BEOTHUK CAMP OBSERVED BY GEORGE CARTWRIGHT IN 1770 - A PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN HOUSEPIT (#3) WAS IDENTIFIED AT INSPECTOR ISLAND IN 2014

TABLE 3 (CONTINUED): ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINING BEOTHUK CULTURE

L’ANSE A FLAMME - ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS PROVIDED THE FIRST EVIDENCE THAT CORNER-NOTCHED STONE PROJECTILE (CjAx-01) POINTS WERE MADE BY THE BEOTHUK’S DIRECT ANCESTORS, THE LATTER WERE NAMED THE LITTLE PASSAGE COMPLEX BY ARCHAEOLOGISTS - PRE-LITTLE PASSAGE OCCUPATIONS OCCURRED HERE - THE SITE WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS BY BEOTHUK INSTITUTE MEMBER TOM KENDELL - THE SITE HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY EROSION AND HISTORIC SETTLER ACTIVITIES RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) - NEAR-COASTAL-INTERIOR BEOTHUK/ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK SITE LOCATED IN TRINITY BAY - OCCUPIED BY BEOTHUK AND THEIR ANCESTORS FROM A.D. 1000-1650 - SITE WAS INHABITED BY SOME OF THE SAME BEOTHUK WHO PEACEFULLY MET JOHN GUY’S GROUP IN BULL ARM ON OCTOBER 26, 1612 - OCCUPANTS UTILIZED A PREDOMINANTLY TRADITIONAL TOOLKIT, INCLUDING 386 STONE PROJECTILE POINTS, BUT THE PRESENCE OF A SINGLE MODIFIED NAIL AND 26 OTHER IRON OBJECTS SUGGESTS THESE BEOTHUK WERE LEARNING HOW TO REWORK EUROPEAN IRON - CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH ADOPTION OF HOUSEPITS AT THE BEACHES SITE, BUT BEOTHUK DID NOT BUILD HOUSEPITS IN TRINITY BAY BOOM ISLAND (DfAw-03) - INTERIOR BEOTHUK SITE, CONTAINING AT LEAST 10 HEARTHS IN A SMALL MEADOW AND A SINGLE HOUSEPIT BUILT IN A SEPARATE AREA - SALVAGE EXCAVATION OF ONE HEARTH PRODUCED STONE ARROW HEADS, OTHER STONE ARTIFACTS, ANIMAL BONE AND CHARCOAL THAT DATED TO 320 +/- 30 BEFORE PRESENT (1950) (AD 1510 – 1616 CAL) - ARTIFACTS AND RADIOCARBON DATE REPRESENT BEOTHUK INLAND ACTIVITY PRECEEDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSEPIT ON BOOM ISLAND AND THE WHOLESALE RETREAT TO THE EXPLOITS VALLEY AROUND 1730 - HEARTH AREA HAS SUFFERED DRASTIC EROSION DUE TO FLUCUATING RIVER LEVELS AND THE DAMAGE IS ONGOING; THE HOUSEPIT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY THREATENED ASPEN ISLAND-2 (DfAw-05) - LOCATED 600 METERS FROM BOOM ISLAND AND 1100 METRES FROM WIGWAM BROOK (DfAw-01), IN NIMROD’S POOL ON THE EXPLOITS RIVER - LARGE LITTLE PASSAGE HEARTH WAS RADIOCARBON DATED TO 600 +/- 60 BEFORE PRESENT (1950) (CAL AD 1295 – 1410) - SIX BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS REMAINING AT THE SITE INCLUDE THE SMALLEST EXAMPLE ON RECORD - A LARGE BONE MIDDEN IS EXTANT OUTSIDE THE HOUSEPITS - 2200 YEAR OLD GROSWATER PALAEO-INUIT HEARTHS FOUND ERODING NEAR THE LITTLE PASSAGE HEARTH WERE EXCAVATED IN 2015 AND 2016

TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINING BEOTHUK CULTURE

ASPEN ISLAND-2 (DfAw-05) - THE SITE HAS SUFFERED SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM EROSION AND LOOTING (CONTINUED - ONGOING EROSION EXPOSED NUMEROUS PALAEO-INUIT ARTIFACTS IN 2021 (APPENDIX) - THREE MORE BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS AND BONE DEBRIS OCCUR 25 METERS AWAY AT ASPEN ISLAND-1 (DfAw- 03) - AN ADDITIONAL BEOTHUK HOUSEPIT AND BONE DEBRIS OCCURS NEARBY AT ASPEN ISLAND-3 (DfAw-06) SOUTH EXPLOITS - LOCATED ON THE SOUTH BANK OF THE EXPLOITS RIVER, SEPARATED BY A 240 METER-WIDE CHANNEL FROM (DfAw-07) ASPEN ISLAND - PRESENCE OF EIGHT BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS HAS NOT BEEN ARCHAEOLOGICALLY CONFIRMED - LARGE SAMPLE OF BEOTHUK-MODIFIED IRON INCLUDES HIGH-QUALITY DEER SPEARS IDENTICAL TO ITEMS FROM SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08), 83 KILOMETERS INLAND ON RED INDIAN LAKE SHORELINE - OTHER UNIQUE MODIFIED IRON WAS FOUND AT THE SITE - RECOVERY OF A BEACHES COMPLEX STONE PROJECTILE POINT REPRESENTS THE PRESENCE OF LITTLE PASSAGE ANCESTORS, CA. OVER 1000 YEARS AGO - SITE HAS SUFFERED CONSIDERABLE EROSION AND LOOTING DAMAGE; EROSION CONTINUES SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) - UNDISTURBED BEOTHUK HOUSEPIT, ONE OF THE LARGEST FOUND TO DATE, WAS IDENTIFIED IN 2016 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON THE SOUTH SHORELINE OF RED INDIAN LAKE - ELABORATE CONSTRUCTION IS SIMILAR TO A HOUSEPIT FROM INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01), 240 METERS AWAY, AND ANOTHER ONE FROM RED INDIAN FALLS-3 (DfBb-02), LOCATED 35 KILOMETERS DOWNRIVER - WIDE INTERIOR PLATFORMS ADJACENT TO WALLS ARE POSSIBLE SLEEPING AREAS AND SUGGEST AN INUIT INFLUENCE - A UNIQUE IRON PROJECTILE POINT (TYPE 4B) ARCHAEOLOGICALLY RECOVERED FROM INSIDE THE HOUSEPIT SUGGESTS A EUROPEAN-MADE TRADE OBJECT OR THE PRODUCT OF A HIGHLY-SKILLED BEOTHUK IRON- RECYCLER - THE PRESENCE OF A HIGHLY-SKILLED BEOTHUK IRON-RECYCLER IS SUPPORTED BY THE RECOVERY OF AN ELABORATELY-FINISHED DEER SPEAR (TYPE 3D) FROM OUTSIDE THE HOUSEPIT AND A TYPE 3D PREFORM FROM INSIDE THE FORMER STRUCTURE. TWO IDENTICAL TYPE 3D DEER SPEARS WERE PREVIOUSLY FOUND AT SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07)

TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINING BEOTHUK CULTURE

FERRYLAND (CgAf-02) - SIXTEENTH CENTURY BEOTHUK SITE FOUND BETWEEN LAYERS OF EUROPEAN OCCUPATIONS AT A VACANT MIGRATORY FISHING ROOM PRE-DATING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BALTIMORE’S COLONY IN 1621 - BEOTHUK HEARTHS, STONE ARTIFACTS, CHARCOAL AND SEEDS ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH ARTIFACTS FROM SPANISH, PORTUGUESE, BASQUE AND ENGLISH WEST COUNTRY FISHERMEN ACTIVE BEFORE 1580 - BEOTHUK POSSESSION OF GRAPE AND RAISIN SEEDS SUGGESTS PEACEFUL BEOTHUK-EUROPEAN RELATIONS - FERRYLAND IS 55 KILOMETERS OVERLAND FROM ST. MARY’S BAY AND 72 KILOMETERS OVERLAND FROM THE BOTTOM OF TRINITY BAY, SUGGESTING POSSIBLE ROUTES OF ACCESS BURIALS 30 BEOTHUK BURIALS HAVE BEEN PRIVATELY IDENTIFIED AT 15 LOCATIONS. ANOTHER 14 REPORTED BEOTHUK BURIALS HAVE NOT BEEN CONFIRMED. SOME OF THE 30 ACCEPTED INTERNMENTS WERE EXAMINED BY PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS BUT ALL 30 WERE DISTURBED PRIOR TO PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS. ALL ARE IMPORTANT FOR VARIOUS REASONS, BUT A FEW ARE ESPECIALLY NOTEWORTHY:

- SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF 23 BURIALS FOUND NO EVIDENCE FOR DIETARY STRESS, DISEASE OR DEATH BY TRAUMA (JERKIC 1993:225) - RECENT ANALYSIS OF MARITIME ARCHAIC, BEOTHUK AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF DORSET DNA CONCLUDED THAT BEOTHUK WERE NOT DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF THE MARITIME ARCHAIC WHO OCCUPIED NEWFOUNDLAND FROM 5500 YEARS AGO UNTIL 3200 YEARS AGO. EASTERN CANADA WAS SETTLED BY MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT ARRIVALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH EPISODES OF ABANDONMENT, SEVERE CONSTRICTION OR LOCAL EXTINCTION FOLLOWED BY IMMIGRATIONS FROM SINGLE OR MULTIPLE SOURCES (DUGGAN ET AL 2017). BEOTHUK’S ANCESTORS, KNOWN AS THE BEACHES COMPLEX IN NEWFOUNDLAND APPEAR AROUND 2000 YEARS AGO WHEN PALAEO-INUIT PEOPLE WERE LIVING PRIMARILY IN OUTER COASTAL AREAS BURNT ISLAND (BIG ISLAND), PILLEY’S TICKLE, NOTRE DAME BAY (DjAw-17) - ENCOUNTERED BY A NEWFOUNDLAND SETTLER IN 1882 - CAVE CONTAINS THE NATURALLY MUMMIFIED REMAINS OF A 5.5 TO SIX YEAR-OLD CHILD WRAPPED IN A FORMER LEATHER LEGGING - PRESENCE OF BIRCH BARK, BONE PENDANTS, TRADITIONAL ARTIFACTS SUGGESTED A BEOTHUK CHILD, BUT A RADIOCARBON DATE OF 549 +/- 62 BEFORE PRESENT (CAL AD 1298-1449) INDICATES IT IS LITTLE PASSAGE - REMAINS OF AN ADULT BEOTHUK, WITH ASSOCIATED EUROPEAN OBJECTS, WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITED 15 FEET AWAY FROM THE CHILD

TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINING BEOTHUK CULTURE

ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT FOX BAR (DeAk - 02) GRAVES (CONTINUED) - SEVEN INDIVIDUALS WERE INTERRED DURING TWO VISITS, ONE IN THE LATE SIXTEENTH CENTURY AND THE SECOND IN THE MID-SEVENTEENTH CENTURY (DUGGAN ET AL 2017) - COMBINATION OF TRADITIONAL BEOTHUK ARTIFACTS, MODIFIED IRON AND EUROPEAN ITEMS WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE HUMAN REMAINS - LOCATED 1.5 KIMOMETERS FROM THE BEACHES SITE (DeAk - 01) - FOUND IN DISTURBED CONDITION BY ARCHAEOLOGISTS WHO CONDUCTED SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS IN 1973 RED INDIAN LAKE - 1820 TOMB CONTAINING NONOSABASUT (MALE), DEMASDUIT (FEMALE) AND AN UNSPECIFIED NUMBER OF CHILDREN - GRAVE GOODS INCLUDED TRADITIONAL AND EUROPEAN MATERIALS - DISTURBED BY LOOTING, DESTROYED BY EROSION; PRECISE LOCATION WAS NOT RECORDED RENCONTRE ISLAND (CjBj-02) - ONE OF THREE VERIFIED BEOTHUK BURIALS ON ISLANDS IN PLACENTIA BAY - FIRST IDENTIFIED BY HISTORIC SETTLERS IN 1847

TABLE 4: BEOTHUK RADIOCARBON DATES SITE CHARCOAL SOURCE SAMPLE DATE NUMBER UPPER BURGEO (CjBj-07) 96 % SIGMA 2 CAL AD 1444-1651 BEACHES (DeAk-01) HOUSEPIT 6 HEARTH BETA- 68% CAL AD 1454- 1604 SAILOR SITE (DeAj-01) HEARTH S-1000, NMC- 68% CAL AD 1460- 738 1610 INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) FEATURE I-6562 68% CAL AD 1464- 33A/HEARTH 1644 RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) MIDDEN 1 BETA-128506 95% SIGMA 2 CAL AD 1490-1665 BOOM ISLAND (DfAw-03) FEATURE 3/HEARTH BETA-422459 68% CAL AD 1510- 1616 BOYD’S COVE (DiAp-03) HOUSEPIT 1 MIDDEN* BETA-6729 68% CAL AD 1520- 1776 RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) MIDDEN 2 BETA-128511 95% SIGMA 2 CAL AD 1525-1560 RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) MIDDEN 2 BETA 128511 95% SIGMA 2 CAL AD 1630-1950 RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) MIDDEN 2 BETA-128510 95% SIGMA 2 CAL AD 1650-1955 INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) HOUSE 1 HEARTH BETA-3677 68% CAL AD 1692- 1904 *MIDDEN WAS POSSIBLY DEPOSITED IN HOUSEPIT 1 BY OCCUPANTS OF HOUSEPIT 11

TABLE 5: LITTLE PASSAGE RADIOCARBON DATES

SITE CHARCOAL SOURCE SAMPLE NUMBER DATE FOX BAR (DeAk-03) I-7510 445 +/- 80 BP (CAL AD 1413-1587) BOAT HOLE BROOK (CkBm-01) BETA-17854 450 +/- 100 BP (CAL AD 1398-1523) THE BEACHES (DeAk-01) MIDDEN BETA-39286 460 +/- 80 BP TEMAGEN GOSPEN (DaBj-01) BETA-38380 530 +/- 50 BP (CAL AD 1395-1437) BURNT ISLAND BURIAL (DjAw-17) 549 +/62 BP (CAL AD 1298 – 1449) RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) HEARTH BETA-128509 560 +/- 40 BP (CAL A.D. 1305-1430) THE BEACHES (DeAk-01) MIDDEN BETA-34272 585 +/- 80 BP (CAL AD 1277-1449) ASPEN ISLAND-2 (DfAw-05) FEATURE 11/ BETA-396195 600 +/- 30 BP HEARTH (CAL A.D. 1295-1410) RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) MIDDEN BETA-128507 600 +/- 40 BP (CAL A.D. 1295-1420) INSPECTOR ISLAND (DiAq-01) BETA-6730 610 +/- 60 BETA-3938 690 +/- 40 BP RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) MIDDEN BETA-151323 620 +/- 40 BP (CAL A.D. 1290-1410) RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) HEARTH BETA-151322 720 +/- 40 BP (CAL A.D. 1250-1305) THE BEACHES (DeAk-01) MIDDEN BETA-39285 760 +/- 110 BP (CAL AD 1163-1313) PORT AU PORT (DdBq-01) BETA-7779 790 +/- 70 BP (CAL AD 1201-1283) SAMPSON’S HEAD COVE (CkAl-04) BETA-35837 830 +/- 130 BP (CAL AD 1119 1282) SPENCE (EeBi-36) BETA-66440 840 +/- 90 BP (CAL AD 1153-1276)

TABLE 5 (CONTINUED): LITTLE PASSAGE RADIOCARBON DATES

RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) HEARTH 14 BETA-151324 840 +/- 40 BP (CAL A.D. 1055-1085) (CAL A.D. 1150-1270) RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) HEARTH 1 BETA-128508 890 +/- 90 BP (CAL A.D. 990-1285) RUSSELL’S POINT (CiAj-01) HEARTH 9 BETA-151321 1020 +/- 40 BP (CAL A.D. 970-1040) BLOODY BAY COVE-1 (DeAl-01) HEARTH S-999 1020 +/- 55 BP (CAL AD 892-1161) L’ANSE A’ FLAMME (CjAx-01) I-11077 1130 +/- 80 BP (CAL AD 758-1039)

TABLE 6A: IMPORTANT BEOTHUK RESEARCH TOPICS/QUESTIONS WORTHY OF FUTURE RESEARCH

(ERODING SITES ARE PRIORITIZED, GIVEN THEIR ENDANGERED STATUS, OTHERWISE SITES/TOPICS ARE NOT LISTED/RANKED IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE)

TABLE 6A: ERODING SITES AND UNIQUE FEATURES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS AND SUSTAINED MONITORING (PLATE 13)

1 THE BEACHES (DeAk-01) (PLATES 1, 12) - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH REPORTED ONGOING EROSION OF THE SITE DURING THE MID-1960S, THE EARLY 1970S AND FROM 1989 UNTIL 2016. THE SITE WAS NOT RE-VISITED DURING THIS PROJECT, BUT EROSION OF AREA A (BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS, AREA B (PALAEO- INUIT AND ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK MATERIAL, AREA C (ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK) AND AREA D (PRECONTACT) APPEARS TO CONTINUE UNABATED. - IMMEDIATE SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS ARE ADVOCATED. 2 SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08) (PLATE 14) A LARGE UNDISTURBED BEOTHUK HOUSEPIT WAS IDENTIFIED AT SABBATH POINT (DeBd-08), ON THE SOUTH SHORE OF RED INDIAN LAKE IN 2016. THIS HOUSEPIT SHARES AN NUMBER OF UNUSUAL ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS WITH A HOUSEPIT INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) AND RED INDIAN FALLS-3 (DfBb-02). - THE INDIAN POINT HOUSEPIT WAS EXCAVATED IN 1969, BUT EXCAVATION OF THE SABBATH POINT AND RED INDIAN FALLS-3 EXAMPLES ARE ADVOCATED TO ASSESS THE POSSIBILITY THAT ALL THREE WERE BUILT BY THE SAME BEOTHUK OCCUPANTS. - THE SABBATH POINT HOUSEPIT IS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF EROSION AND WARRANTS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. 3 SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07) - EIGHT HOUSEPITS WERE REPORTED AND SAMPLED BY AVOCATIONAL RESEARCH AT SOUTH EXPLOITS DURING THE 1960S (LOCKE 1975). PROFESSIONAL MAPPING AND EXCAVATION OF THESE HOUSEPITS IS REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN THE SITE’S CONDITION AND TO DETERMINE ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE SABBATH POINT SITE (DeBd-08) WHICH IS LOCATED 83 KILOMETERS INLAND FROM SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07). - HIGH QUALITY IRON SPEAR HEADS (TYPE 3D) ARE UNIQUE TO SABBATH POINT AND SOUTH EXPLOITS. THESE ARTIFACTS MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSEPITS MANIFESTING MORPHOLOGY SPECIFIC TO SABBATH POINT, INDIAN POINT AND RED INDIAN FALLS. BRUSH CLEARING, MAPPING AND EXCAVATION OF SOUTH EXPLOITS HOUSEPITS IS PROPOSED TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH HOUSEPITS AT THE LATTER SITE AS WELL. - EXTERIOR HEARTHS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AT SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07). EXCAVATIONS ARE NEEDED TO OBTAIN ARTIFACTS AND RADIOCARBON DATES THAT WILL IDENTIFY WHO BUILT THE HEARTHS. THIS WILL DETERMINE IF THE ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK – BEOTHUK HORIZONTAL DIVISION OF SOUTH EXPLOITS FOLLOWS THE SAME PATTERN OBSERVED AT A NUMBER OF OTHER MILTI-COMPONENT SITES.

TABLE 6A (CONTINUED): ERODING SITES AND UNIQUE FEATURES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS AND SUSTAINED MONITORING (FIGURE 12)

4 NOEL PAUL’S BROOK-4 (DeBb-04) - FOUR BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS WERE IDENTIFIED AT THIS SITE DURING THE 1960S (LOCKE 1975). THREE WERE RE-IDENTIFIED IN 2010. ONE HOUSEPIT WAS IN THE EARLY STAGES OF EROSION AND THE OTHER TWO WERE WITHIN ONE METER OF THE ERODING RIVER BANK. - IMMEDIATE SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS AND SUSTAINED MONITORING ARE NEEDED HERE. 5 TWO MILE ISLAND-2 (DfBa-03) RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IDENTIFIED A UNIQUE CHARCOAL-FILLED PIT IN A LARGE PLATFORM BUILT FROM BOULDERS. THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THIS FEATURE IS EXPOSED AT THE TOP OF TWO MILE ISLAND’S ERODING EDGE. - SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS ARE PROPOSED DETERMINE WHO BUILT THIS FEATURE AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE BEFORE IT IS DESTROYED. POTENTIAL BEOTHUK CAMPSITES ALONG NEWFOUNDLAND’S SOUTH COAST - PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND DATA REVIEW IDENTIFIED BEOTHUK-STYLE STONE PROJECTILE POINTS, ALONG WITH ARTIFACTS POSSIBLY MADE FROM EUROPEAN BALLAST IN ASSOCIATION WITH FRAGMENTS OF EUROPEAN OBJECTS AT A NUMBER OF SOUTH COAST SITES, SOME OF WHICH ARE ERODING:

6 MELBOURNE SITE (CjBj-01) – STONE PROJECTILE POINTS AND TRIANGULAR BIFACES SUGGEST LITTLE PASSAGE/EARLY BEOTHUK - PRIVATE COLLECTING OCCURRED WHILE THE SITE WAS ERODING AND IT IS NOW COMPLETELY ERODED

7 CORNELIUS ISLAND (CjBj-07) - BEOTHUK STONE PROJECTILE POINTS - ENDSCRAPER MADE ON EUROPEAN BALLAST FLINT - RADIOCARBON DATED TO 350 +/- 60 BEFORE PRESENT BETA-3537) -DISTURBED FROM PRIVATE COLLECTING

8 GRANBY ISLAND (CjBj-10) - PALAEO-INUIT AND ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK ARTIFACTS, BUT AN ENDSCRAPER MADE FROM EUROPEAN BALLAST FLINT OR A GUNFLINT SIGGESTS AN EARLY BEOTHUK COMPONENT AS WELL - ERODING, IS LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND HAS BEEN PRIVATELY COLLECTED

TABLE 6A (CONTINUED): ERODING SITES AND UNIQUE FEATURES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS AND SUSTAINED MONITORING (PLATE 13)

9 INDIAN POINT (DeBd-01) AND JUNE’S COVE (DeBd-03) -SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS ARE NEEDED TO UPDATE INFORMATION ON THESE MULTI-COMPONENT LONG-TERM OCCUPATIONS - RECENT DISCOVERY OF AN AMAK (SNOW-SHOE NEEDLE) AT JUNE’S COVE IS A UNIQUE BEOTHUK ARTIFACT, OBTAINED FROM MI’KMAQ OR INNU, OR REPRESENTS EVIDENCE OF SOME THE LATTER GROUPS VISITING RED INDIAN LAKE; THE TINY REMNANT OF THE JUNE’S COVE SITE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED BEFORE IT IS COMPLETELY LOST - ONE CONFIRMED HOUSEPIT REMAINS AT INDIAN POINT, THREE OTHER TENTATIVE HOUSEPITS REQUIRE EXCAVATION TO CONFIRM THEIR CLASSIFICATION - EXCAVATION OF HEARTHS AND MIDDENS AT INDIAN POINT ARE REQUIRED

TABLE 6B: BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR PRODUCING SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION THROUGH EXCAVATIONS (FIGURE 12)

1 INDIAN COVE-SOUTH (DhAt-15) A HOUSEPIT-LIKE DEPRESSION, CONTAINING A HEARTH AND STONE TOOLS, WAS IDENTIFIED AT INDIAN COVE-SOUTH (DhAt-15), IN THE BAY OF EXPLOITS. EXCAVATIONS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THIS FEATURE AND IF SUFFICIENT ARCHITECTURAL TRAITS ARE PRESENT TO CLASSIFY IT AS A HOUSEPIT. IF IT IS A HOUSEPIT, IT WOULD BE THE FIRST TO BE IDENTIFIED IN THE BAY OF EXPLOITS. 2 TWO MILE ISLAND-1, 2 (DfBa-02, 03) RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH RE-IDENTIFIED NINE HOUSEPITS AND FOUND ONE NEW ONE ON TWO MILE ISLAND, WHICH IS LOCATED TWO MILES UPRIVER FROM THE TOWN OF BADGER. THE CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE LOCATIONS OF THESE HOUSEPITS, IN CONSIDERATION OF TWO MILE ISLAND’S CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE JUNCTURE OF BADGER BROOK AND THE EXPLOITS RIVER, SUGGESTS TWO MILE ISLAND MAY BE THE LAST, OR ONE OF THE TERMINAL BEOTHUK SITES ON THE RIVER. - EXCAVATIONS ARE NEEDED TO ASSESS THIS POSSIBILITY.

TABLE 6B: BEOTHUK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR PRODUCING SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION THROUGH EXCAVATIONS (FIGURE 12)

3 BOYD’S COVE’S - EXCAVATIONS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOME OF THE SITE’S HOUSEPITS WERE OCCUPIED BEFORE A.D. 1650. TYPES OF ARTIFACTS PRESENT AND RADIOCARBON DATES WILL HELP ANSWER THIS QUESTION ALONG WITH PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN MATERIALS. - EXCAVATIONS ARE PROPOSED TO TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF LARGE HEARTHS CREATED BY ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK BEFORE HOUSEPITS WERE ERECTED, SIMILAR TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEATURES AT THE BEACHES (DeAk-01), INSPECTOR ISLAND (DiAq-01), ASPEN ISLAND-2 (DfAw-05), BOOM ISLAND (DfAm-03), INDIAN POINT )DeBd-01) AND SOUTH EXPLOITS (DfAw-07). 4 INDIAN BAY, IN NORTHWEST BONAVISTA BAY, IMPLIES A STRONG BEOTHUK OR MI’KMAQ HERITAGE, BUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH TO DATE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF BEOTHUK OR MI’KMAQ SITES AMONG ITS 33 ARCHAEOLOGICAL LOCALITIES. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION OF ITS 23 UNKNOWN ABORIGINAL COMPONENTS IS PROPOSED TO IDENTIFY THESE DEPOSITS AS BEOTHUK OR OTHERWISE. 6 DILDO RUN, IN NOTRE DAME BAY, SHOWS ONLY TWO BEOTHUK SITES AND TWO POSSIBLE BEOTHUK OCCUPATIONS OUT OF 39 COMPONENTS AT 28 SITES, DESPITE A RICH BEOTHUK HERITAGE AND HISTORIC INFORMATION REPORTING BEOTHUK ACTIVITY. - EXCAVATION OF POSSIBLE BEOTHUK DEPOSITS AND THE REGION’S 10 UNKNOWN ABORIGINAL COMPONENTS TO CHECK FOR DIAGNOSTIC BEOTHUK MATERIAL IS ADVOCATED. 7 ARE THERE OTHER ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK HEARTHS AND ASSOCIATED FEATURES AWAITING IDENTIFICATION AT HOUSEPIT-CONTAINING SITES NOT MENTIONED IN THE PRECEEDING SECTION? - THIS QUESTION CAN BE RESEARCHED VIA EXCAVATIONS AT 19 EXPLOITS VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES. 8 EXCAVATION OF BOULDER MOUNDS, ADEQUATELY-SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE HUMAN REMAINS, IS PROPOSED TO CHECK THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY CONTAIN GRAVES. THESE FEATURES WERE RECORDED AT THWART ISLAND (DhAs-04), SOUTH SAMSON ISLAND (DiAr-15), WITHIN THE FOUNDATION OF SABBATH POINT’S (DeBd-08) HOUSEPIT, AT FOUR LOCATIONS ON THE WEST COAST OF NEW WORLD ISLAND AND NEAR THE FOUR MILE RAPIDS SITE (DfAv-01) (TABLE 9).

TABLE 6C: HIGH POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION

1 BADGER BAY WATERSHED HISTORICAL INFORMATION REPORTS THAT THE BEOTHUK HAD STOPPED USING THE LOWER PART OF THE EXPLOITS RIVER BY 1811, OPTING INSTEAD TO ACCESS THE SEA COAST VIA THE BADGER BAY WATERSHED. - ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYING OF THE SEVEN LARGE WATERBODIES BETWEEN BADGER AND BADGER BAY IS NEEDED TO SEARCH FOR SOME OF THE LATE BEOTHUK SITES RESULTING FROM THIS USAGE. THIS SURVEY WOULD ALSO CHECK FOR PRE-BEOTHUK SITES IN THIS INLAND REGION. - THIS PROPOSED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY MIGHT INCLUDE POLITE CANVASSING OF CABIN OWNERS ALONG BADGER BROOK, JOE’S POND, PAUL’S LAKE, CROOKED LAKE, SOUTH TWIN LAKE AND AFFILIATED SMALLER WATER BODIES, ASKING ABOUT ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERIES OF ARTIFACTS. 2 LARGE BEOTHUK VILLAGE ON THE SHORE OF BADGER BAY GREAT POND OR NEW BAY POND WILLIAM CORMACK, IN 1828, ENCOUNTERED THE REMAINS OF A LARGE BEOTHUK VILLAGE ON THE SHORE OF BADGER BAY GREAT POND, OR NEW BAY POND. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYING OF THESE WATERBODIES IS WARRANTED TO LOOK FOR THIS FORMER SETTLEMENT AS WELL AS A WELL-USED PORTAGE STOP THAT APPEARS TO OCCUR ON THE SHORE OF BADGER BAY GREAT POND. 3 BAY ST. GEORGE AND PORT AU PORT BAY COASTAL SURVEY IS ADVOCATED TO CHECK FOR ADDITIONAL ANCESTRAL BEOTHUK SITES, IN ADDITION TO SEARCHING FOR BEOTHUK AND MI’KMAQ LOCALITIES 4 EXPLOITS RIVER SOUTH BANK (OPPOSITE THE TOWN OF BADGER) JOHN CARTWRIGHT’S MAP OF THE EXPLOITS VALLEY, BASED ON DATA RECORDED IN 1768, RECORDED NINE BEOTHUK STRUCTURES IN THREE CLUSTERS ALONG THE SOUTH BANK OF THE EXPLOITS RIVER OPPOSITE THE TOWN OF BADGER. DEER FENCES WERE ALSO PRESENT. COMPREHENSIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF ANY OF THESE OCCUPATIONS ARE EXTANT. 5 HARE BAY, GREAT NORTHERN PENINSULA - EIGHTEENTH CENTURY BEOTHUK CAMPS ARE REPORTED, AS WELL AS NINETEENTH-CENTURY BEOTHUK, BUT ARE NOT ARCHAEOLOGICALLY CONFIRMED 6 BONNE BAY - EIGHTEENTH CENTURY BEOTHUK ARE HISTORICALLY REPORTED, BUT NOT ARCHAEOLOGICALLY VERIFIED 7 ENTRANCE TO THE BAY OF ISLANDS - A BRIEF LITTLE PASSAGE OCCUPATION IS KNOWN, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BEOTHUK TO DATE 8 ST. MARY’S BAY - SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY BEOTHUK ACTIVITIES ARE HISTORICALLY RECORDED, BUT THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE - CLOSE PROXIMITY OF TRINITY BAY, PLACENTIA BAY AND FERRYLAND CREATES POTENTIAL FOR BEOTHUK AND OTHER FIRST NATIONS MOVEMENT BETWEEN THESE REGIONS

TABLE 6D: IMPORTANT BEOTHUK RESEARCH TOPICS/QUESTIONS WORTHY OF FUTURE RESEARCH

1 DID THE BEOTHUK OCCUPANTS OF HOUSEPITS IN THE EXPLOITS VALLEY USE STONE PROJECTILE POINTS AND OTHER STONE TOOLS? EXCAVATION OF EXPLOITS VALLEY HOUSEPITS IS REQUIRED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION 2 IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIC IRON PROJECTILE POINTS AND OTHER MODIFIED IRON THROUGHOUT THE EXPLOITS VALLEY LINKED TO THE MOVEMENT OF PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS OR FAMILIES? - EXAMINATION OF EXISTING ARTIFACTS AND PROVENIENCE DATA WILL CONTRIBUTE TO ANSWERING THIS QUESTION, BUT AN INCREASED ARTIFACT SAMPLE AND MORE COMPLETE PROVENIENCE INFORMATION ARE ANTICIPATED FROM FURTHER EXCAVATION OF BEOTHUK HOUSEPITS AND ASSOCIATED FEATURES. 3 IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIC HOUSEPIT MORPHOLOGIES THROUGHOUT THE EXPLOITS VALLEY LINKED TO PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS AND/OR FAMILIES? - CAREFUL RECORDING OF HOUSEPIT TYPES AND MAPPING THEIR DISTRIBUTION WILL ASSIST IN ANSWERING THIS QUESTION. EXCAVATIONS WOULD IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND ASSOCIATED RELEVANT INFORMATION. 4 WHAT ANIMALS DID BEOTHUK UTILIZE IN THE EXPLOITS VALLEY WHEN CARIBOU NUMBERS PLUMMETTED OR WERE OTHERWISE IN SHORT SUPPLY? EXCAVATION OF MIDDENS IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY WILL HELP TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

TABLE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF BEOTHUK IRON PROJECTILE POINTS, PREFORMS AND FRAGMENTS

1A 1B T1 2A 2B 2C T2 3A 3B 3C 3D T3 T4 T4B TOT T1PR T2PR T3PR T4PR TOT PP/ TOT % PP PPP PPP IP 3 1 1 (5) 5 2.5 JC 1 1 3 (5) 1(N) 1 (4) 4 13 6.5 2 SP 1 1 (2) 1 (1) 3 1.5 ?(RIL) 1 2 2 1 (6) 1 1 (2) 3 11 5.5 RIF1 1 (1) 1 0.5 RIF2 1 (1) 1 0.5 RIF3 1 1 (2) 2 1.0 RIF4 1 (1) 1 0.5 RIF5 1 (1) 1 0.5 PP 1 1 (2) 1 5 (6) 1 9 4.5 2MI1 2 (2) 2 1(N) (4) 6 3.0 1 BI 1 (1) 1 0.5 WB 2 1 7 1 (11) 5 24 (29) 6 46 23.0 AI1 2 1 1 (2) 2 1.0 AI2 2 (2) 2 (2) 4 2.0 SE 1(N) 2 3 (15) 1 3 3 1 (8) 1 24 12.0 9 4MR 2 (2) 2 (2) 4 2.0 SL 1 (1) 1 0.5 INT 1 2 0 0 8 3 28 3 1 1 3 8 0 (59) 11 45 6 1 (63) 15 137 68.5 TOT (81.4%) (88.7%) (26.3%) BE 1 (1) 2 3 1.5 FBB 4 (4) 9 13 6.5 BC 5 5 (10) 1 1 (2) 25 37 18.5 II 1 1 (2) 1 (1) 6 9 4.5 CIB 1 (1) 1 0.5 COAS 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 (13) 5 1 1 1 (8) 42 63 31.5 TOT (18.6%) (11.3%) (73.7%) TOT 6 2 1 5 8 3 29 3 1 1 3 8 1 1 (72) 16 46 6 2 (71) 57 200 100 % 3.0 1.0 0.5 2.5 4.0 1.5 14.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 4.0 0.5 0.5 (36.0) 8.0 23.0 3.0 1.0 35.5) 28.5 100

TABLE 8: SOURCES OF PRIVATELY COLLECTED STONE ARTIFACTS (REPORTED BY T.G.B. LLOYD IN 1876)

FOX ISLAND, RANDRA SOUND TRINITY BAY BONAVISTA BAY FUNK ISLAND TWILLINGATE ISLAND BAY OF EXPLOITS HARE BAY, NOTRE DAME BAY SOP ISLAND (VISITED BY LLOYD) GRANBY ISLAND CONCHE HARBOUR (VISITED BY LLOYD) HOW HARBOUR, HARE BAY BONNE BAY MOUTH OF FLAT BAY BROOK (ST. GEORGES BAY) CODROY RIVER INDIAN BURIAL GROUND

TABLE 9: LOCATIONS OF MOUNDED COBBLES DEEMED POTENTIALLY ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT

FOUR MILE RAPIDS (DfAv-01) 2 X 1.7 X 0.55 M MOUND LOCATED 305 METERS SOUTHWEST FROM SITE (MCLEAN 2016B:32) BROWN’S ROOM (DiAr-15) 12.4 X5.3 X 1 M ELLIPTICAL MOUND (MCLEAN 2013F:13) THWART ISLAND MOUND 10 X 4.5 X 2 M MOUND OF LARGE AND SMALL ROCKS (MCLEAN (DhAs-04) 2017E:18) PUZZLE HARBOUR- TWO MOUNDS OF COBBLES AND CLAY: NORTHWEST (DjAr-13) 1) 1.9 X 1.4 X 0.5 M 2) 3.2 X 2.6 X 0.8 M (MCLEAN 2019:29) CHARLIE’S PARK (DjAr-18) 2.5 X 2.5 X 0.35 M MOUND OF COBBLES (MCLEAN 2019:45) RIDEOUT’S GARDEN, LUKE’S TWO MOUNDS (MCLEAN 2019:5) ARM NORTH SHORE OF COTTLE’S ONE MOUND (MCLEAN 2019:5) ISLAND LIMESTONE HEAD ONE MOUND (MCLEAN 2019:5)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beaudoin, Matthew, Richard L. Josephs, Lisa K. Rankin. 2010 Attributing Cultural Affiliation to Sod Structures in Labrador: A Labrador Metis Example from North River. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 34:148-173.

Black, S.M., I.C.L. Marshall and A.C. Kitchener. 2009 The Skulls of Chief Nonosabasut and His Wife Demasduit – Beothuk of Newfoundland, in The International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19:659-677.

Carignan, Paul 1973 Archaeology of Bonavista Bay: Salvage Report – 1973. Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1975 The Beaches: A Multi-Component Habitation Site in Bonavista Bay. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 39. Ottawa.

Catto, Norm Late Holocene Sea-Level Changes, Eastern Newfoundland. Current Research 2000 (2000). Geological Survey Report 2000-1. Department of Mines and Energy, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Cartwright, George 1792 A Journal of Transactions and Events on the Coast of Labrador. Three volumes. Allan and Ridge. Newark, England.

Colonial Records – 194 Volume 7, Folio 7. No date. Microfilm in the Public Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Cridland, Jennifer 1998 Late Prehistoric Indian Subsistence in Northeastern Newfoundland: Faunal Analysis of Little Passage Complex Assemblages from the Beaches and Inspector Island Sites. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s

Cuff, Robert and Derek Wilton. 1993 Jukes’ Excursions. Harry Cuff Publications Ltd. St. John’s.

Cumbaa, Steven 1984 “Divers Furres and Deeres Flesh” – Animal Use by a Seventeenth-Century Beothuk Population at Boyd’s Cove, Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland. Zooarchaeological

Identification Centre, National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums Canada. Ottawa.

Deal, Michael and McLean, Laurie 1995 The Beaches Archaeological-Palaeothnobotanical Project: Fieldwork. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Devereux, Helen. 1965 The Pope’s Point Site, Newfoundland. Microfiche in the Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1969 The Beaches Site, in Five Archaeological Sites in Newfoundland. Unpublished manuscript, Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University of Newfoundland. St. John’s.

1970 A Preliminary Report on the Indian Point site, a Stratified Beothuk site. Unpublished manuscript, Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Duggan, Ana, Alison J.T. Harris, Stephanie Marciniak, G. Brian Golding, Vaughn Grimes and Hendrik Poinar. 2017 Genetic Discontinuity between the Maritime Archaic and Beothuk Populations in Newfoundland, Canada. Current Biology (report). October.

Erwin, John and Stephen Hull. 2018 Provincial Archaeology Office 2017 Field Activities. Provincial Archaeology Office 2017 Archaeology Review. Stephen, Delphina Mercer (editors), Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Erwin, John C., Donald H. Holly Jr., Stephen Hull and Timothy L. Rast. 2005 Form and Function of Projectile Points and the Trajectory of Newfoundland History. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 29: 46-67.

Fagan, Brian. 1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson. London.

Gaulton, Rick. 2001 Early Historic Beothuk Evidence from Ferryland, Newfoundland (CgAf-02). Honours Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland. St. John’s.

Gilbert, William 1992 “great good done...” – Beothuk – European Relations in Trinity Bay, 1612-1622. Newfoundland Quarterly 87 (3).

2002 Russell’s Point (CiAj-01): A Little Passage/Beothuk Site at the Bottom of Trinity Bay. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Gilman, Patricia A. 1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity Volume 52, No. 3.

Harris, Alison, J., T., Ana T. Duggan, Stephanie Marciniak, Ingeborg Marshall, Benjamin T. Fuller, John Southam, Hendrik N. Poinar, Vaughn Grimes. 2019 Dorset Pre-Inuit and Beothuk Foodways in Newfoundland, ca. A.D. 500 – 1829. PLOS ONE 14 (1): e0210187. June 7. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone 0210187.

Harris, Cole and Geoffrey J. Matthews. 1987 Historic Atlas of Canada Vol. 1. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.

Head, C. Grant. 1976 Eighteenth-Century Newfoundland. McClelland and Stewart. Toronto

Henriksen, George. 1973 Hunters in the Barrens. Newfoundland Social and Economic Studies #12. Institute for Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Holly, Donald H., Jr. 1997 An Archaeological Survey of Fogo Island, Newfoundland, 1997. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2000 The Beothuk on the Eve of their Extinction. Arctic Anthropology 38:1.

2008 Social Aspects and Implications of “Running to the Hills”: the Case of the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:170 – 190.

Holly, Donald H., Jr., Paul Prince and John Erwin. 2018 Bad Year Economics at Birchy Lake. Journal of Anthropological Research. April, 2018.

100

Howley, J.P. 1915 The Beothucs or Red Indians. Prospero Books. Toronto.

Hull, Stephen. 2002 Tanite uet Tshinauetamin? A Trail to Labrador: Recent Indians and the North Cove Site. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland. St. John’s.

Ingstad, Anne. 1977 The Discovery of a Norse Settlement in North America. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo.

Jerkic, Sonja. 1993 Burials and Bones: A Summary of Burial Patterns and Human Skeletal Research in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland Studies Vol. 9 (2).

Jerkic, S.M., P. Horne, A. Auferheide. 1995 Studies of a Beothuk Mummy. Biology and History.

Jenness, Diamond 1929 Notes on the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland. National Museum of Canada Annual Report for 1927. Department of Mines. Ottawa.

Kristensen, Todd J. and Donald Holly Jr. 20xx Birds, Burials and Sacred Cosmology of the Indigenous Beothuk of Newfoundland, Canada. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23:1:41-53.

LeBlanc, Raymond. 1973 The Wigwam Brook Site and the Historic Beothuk Indians. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Lloyd, T.G.B. 1876a A Further Account of the Beothucs of Newfoundland. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 5.

1876b On the Stone Implements of Newfoundland. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 5.

Locke, Don. 1974 Beothuk Artifacts. Robinson-Blackmore. Grand Falls.

N.D. Field Notes. Handwritten manuscript on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

101

Loring, Stephen. “And They Took Away the Stone from Ramah,” Raw Material Sourcing and 2002 Eastern Arctic Archaeology, in Honouring Our Elders: A History of Eastern Arctic Archaeology. W.W.W. Fitzhugh, S. Loring and D. Odess (eds.).

Major, Kevin. 1983 Terra Nova National Park “Human History Study”. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada.

Marshall, Ingeborg. 1977 An Unpublished Map Made by John Cartwright between 1768 and 1773, Showing Beothuk Settlements and Artifacts and Allowing a New Population Estimate. Ethnohistory 24 (3).

1989 Reports and Letters by George Christopher Pulling Relating to the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland. Breakwater Books. St. John’s.

1996 A History and Ethnography of the Beothuk. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Montreal and Kingston.

Martindale, Andrew, Richard Morlan, Matthew Betts, Michael Blake, Conrad Cajewski, Michelle Chaput, Andrew Mason and Pierre Vermeersch. 2016 Canadian Archaeological Database (CARD 2.1). Canada/NL/DeBd-1 (Indian Point)/I-6562.

McLean, Laurie. 1989 The Beothuk Adoption of iron Technology. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1990 Final Report of a 1989 Archaeological Survey in Bonavista Bay. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1991 Burnside Heritage Project: Archaeology Report for Summer, 1990. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1994a Burnside Heritage Project: 1992 Archaeological Report. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1994b Back to the Beaches: New Data Pertaining to the Early Beothuk in Newfoundland. In Northeast Anthropology No. 47.

102

1999 Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc.: 1995 Archaeology Report. Manuscript on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2002 Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc.: 1998 Archaeology Report. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2003 A Guide to Beothuk Iron. Archaeology Unit, Memorial University of Newfoundland. St. John’s.

2005 Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc. Newsletter No. 9 – Summarizing 2005 Activities. On file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2006 Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc., Newsletter No. 10 – Summarizing 2006 Archaeology and Tourist Totals. On file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2007 Archaeology vs. Erosion at the Beaches (DeAk-01). Paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association Annual Meeting. St. John’s.

2008 Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc., Newsletter No. 11 – Summarizing 2007 Archaeology and Tourism. On file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2010 An Archaeological Survey of the Exploits River around Noel Paul’s Brook. Report on File, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2011a An Archaeological Assessment of Red Indian Falls Archaeological Sites. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. St. John’s.

2011b A Historic Resources Assessment of Pope’s Point Archaeological Site (DfBa-01). Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2013a An Archaeological Re-Assessment of Nimrod’s Pool, Exploits River. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

103

2013b An Archaeological Survey of the Northeast Shore of Red Indian Lake, Newfoundland. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2013c An Archaeological Survey of the Western Entrance to Dildo Run, Notre Dame Bay. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2013d An Archaeological Survey of Southwest Dildo Run, Notre Dame Bay. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2013e An Archaeological Survey of South Samson Island, Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2014a an Archaeological Search for Two Beothuk Housepits and a Possible Longhouse at Aspen Island-2 (Dfaw-05). Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2014b an Archaeological Survey of Two Mile Island, Exploits River: Phase 1. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2014c Salvage Archaeology at Aspen Island-2 (DfAw-05), in Nimrod’s Pool, Exploits River. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2015a An Archaeological Survey of Northeastern Dildo Run, Notre Dame Bay: Permit No. 14.43. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2015b An Archaeological Survey of the Area Around Red Indian Falls North Portage, Exploits River. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2015c Observations about Beothuk Housepits. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association. St. John’s. Copy available at

104

the Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2015d Quarrying Esoteric Cores in Bloody Bay Cove. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association. St. John’s. St. John’s.

2015e Final Report for Phase 2 of an archaeological Survey of Two Mile Island, on the Exploits River. Permit Number 15.22. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2016a Final Report for Archaeological Salvage Excavations at Boom Island (DfAw-03) and Aspen Island-2 (DfAw-05), on the Exploits River, Newfoundland. Permit No. 15.36, 15.36.01. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2016b Final Report for an Archaeological Survey of the Four-Mile Rapids Site (DfAv-01) and the South Bank of the Exploits River Opposite the Grand Falls-Windsor Boat Launch. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2017a Report for an Archaeological Survey of Part of the South Shore of Red Indian Lake. Permit No. 16.29, 16.29.01. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2017b An Archaeological Survey of the Sabbath Point Area, Red Indian Lake: Final Report. Permit No. 16.38. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2017c An Archaeological Survey of Northeastern Dildo Run, Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland: Permit No. 16.32. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of |Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2017d An Archaeological Survey of Thwart Island and the Shoreline from Point of Bay to Indian Cove, Bay of Exploits. Report for Permit 17.25. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

105

2018a An Archaeological Survey of Slaughter Island (DfBa-05), the Mouth of Little Red Indian Brook and the North Side of the Exploits River Between Badger Brook and Junction Brook: Final Report. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2018b Partial Excavation of a Beothuk Housepit at Sabbath Point (DeBd-08), Red Indian Lake: Permit Number 18.32. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

2019 An Archaeological Survey of New World Island’s West Coast from Valley Pond to Summerford Arm: Permits 19.23 and 19.23.01. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2020 Beothuk Housepits: Barometers of Historic Transition. Academia.edu.

Mills, Stephen and Barry Gaulton. 2010 Sunnyside-1 (ClAl-05): A Possible Seventeenth-Century Winter House at the Bottom of Bull Arm, Trinity Bay. In the Provincial Archaeology Office 2009 Archaeological Review, Stephen Hull and Delphina Mercer eds.. Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Morry, C.J. and L.J. Cole. 1977 Limnology and Fish Populations of Red Indian Lake, a Multi-Use Reservoir. Fisheries and Marine Services, Environment Canada. Technical Report No. 691.

Ohio State University 2004 Men From Early Middle Ages Were Nearly as Tall as Modern People. ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily 2, Sept. www.sciencedaily.-com/releases/2004/09/040902090552. html.

Pastore, Ralph T. 1982 Preliminary Report of a Survey of Eastern Notre Dame Bay. in Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador – 1981. J. Sproull-Thomson, Callum Thomson (eds.), Historic Resources Division, Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1984 Excavations at Boyd’s Cove, Notre Dame Bay – 1983, in Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador-1983. Annual report No. 4. Jane Sproull Thomson, Callum Thomson (eds.), Historic Resources Division, Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

106

1987 Fishermen, Furriers and Beothuks: The Economy of Extinction. In Man in the Northeast No. 33.

1989 The Collapse of the Beothuk World. Acadiensis 19 (1).

1992 Shanawdithit’s People, the Archaeology of the Beothuks. Atlantic Archaeology Ltd. St. John’s.

Pastore, Ralph T. and Clifford O. Evans. An Archaeological Survey of Gander River and Bay. 1979 Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Penney, Gerald. 1984 The Prehistory of the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Penney, Gerald and Associates 1989 Results of Six Historic Resources Overview Assessments in Newfoundland and Labrador; in Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador, 1986. J. Callum Thomson, Jane Sproull Thomson (eds.), Newfoundland Museum, Historic Resources Division, Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2010 Red Indian Lake Cabin Development: Historic Resources Impact Assessment (Stage 1); Archaeological Investigation Permit #10.39. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Peyton, Amy Louise. 1987 River Lords, Father and Son. Jesperson Press. St. John’s.

Pope, Peter E. 1993 Scavengers and Caretakers: Beothuk/European Settlement Dynamics in Seventeenth-Century Newfoundland. Newfoundland Studies 9 (2).

1997 The Many Landfalls of John Cabot. University of Toronto Press. Toronto.

2003 Early European Occupations in Southeast Newfoundland: Archaeological Perspectives on Competition for Fishing Rooms, 1530-1680. C. Roy, J. Belisle and B. Loewen (eds.), Mer et Monde: Questions d’archeologie Maritime. Archeologiques, Collection hors serie 1, Quebec, QC, Canada.

107

2008 Transformation of the Maritime Cultural Landscape of Atlantic CanadaBy Migratory Fishermen, 1500 – 1800, in Beyond the Catch: Fisheries of the North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic, 900 – 1850. Brill, the Hague, Netherlands.

Quinn, David B. 1979 New American World Volume 4. Arno Press Co. and Hector Bye Inc. New York.

Reader, David. 1994 Up the Creek: The Deer Lake Beach Site and Recent Indian Settlement and Subsistence in the Humber Valley Region, Newfoundland.

1997 Archaeological Excavations at Parkes Beach, Bay of Islands, 1996: Groswater nd Dorset Palaeoeskimo and Beothuk Components. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Renouf, M.A.P., Trevor Bell and Michael Teal. 1999 Making Contact: Recent Indians and Palaeo-Eskimos on the Island of Newfoundland.

Rowley-Conwy, Peter. 1990 Settlement Patterns of the Beothuk Indians: A View from Away. Canadian Journal of Archaeology Vol. 14.

Schwarz, Frederick A. 1984 The Little Passage Complex in Newfoundland. Honours Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1992 Archaeological Excavations in the Newfoundland Interior. Unpublished report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1993 Archaeological Excavations in the Exploits Basin: Report on the 1992 Field Survey. On file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

1994 Archaeological Investigations in the Bay of Islands, Western Newfoundland, September – October, 1994. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

2011 Archaeological Monitoring of Brush Cutting Activities at Six Beothuk Archaeological Sites Along the Exploits River, NL. Report on file, Provincial

108

Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Schwarz, Frederick A. and Corey Hutchings. 2018 Archaeological Excavations at Sabbath Point (DeBd-08), July 2018, Red Indian Lake, Newfoundland. Report on file, Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

Searcy, Michael, Bernard Schriever and Matthew Taliaferro. 2016 Early Mimbres Households: Exploring the Late Pithouse Period (550-1000 A.D.) at the Florida Mountain Site. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41.

Simpson, David 1987 Prehistoric Archaeology of the Port au Port Peninsula, Western Newfoundland. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John‘s.

Speck, Frank 1922 Beothuk and Micmac. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. New York.

Stewart, Frances L. 1971 Faunal Analysis of the Indian Point Site, Red Indian Lake, Newfoundland. Archives of the Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man. Ottawa.

1973 Faunal Analysis of the Wigwam Brook Site of Newfoundland. in The Wigwam Brook Site and the Historic Beothuk Indians, Raymond LeBlanc (see above).

Stopp, Marianne P. 2015 Faceted Inuit-European Contact in Southern Labrador. Etudes/Inuit/Studies Vol. 39, No. 1.

Topping, Peter. Neolithic Axe Quarries and Flint Mines: Towards an Ethnography of Prehistoric 2010 Extraction, in Ancient Mines and Quarries: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective. Brewer La Porta, Margaret, Adrian Burke, David Fields (eds.). Oxbow Books. Exeter.

Williamson, James, Jeffrey Speller and Natasha Jones. 2021 Surveys of Beothuk Housepits in 2020. Provincial Archaeology Office, Annual Review 2020. Volume 19. Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s.

109

Young, Ewart 1951 Grand Falls, Botwood, Bishops Falls, Millertown, Terra Nova: Pulp and Paper Town of the Interior. Guardian Associates, Ltd. Montreal.

110

APPENDIX

Plate A1: Type 4 Beothuk Projectile Point

111

Plate A2: Artifacts seen on the surface of Aspen Island-2 (DfAw-05) during August, 2021.