Report on the Baxter Andrews Archaeology C O L L E C T I O N F R O M C a P E I S L a N D , N E W F O U N D L a N D

A REPORT ON THE BAXTER ANDREWS ARCHAEOLOGY C O L L E C T I O N F R O M C A P E I S L A N D , N E W F O U N D L A N D

John Andrew Campbell Memorial University St. John’s, NL

Community Collections Archaeological Research Project Volume 2 March 2016 With support from the Cultural Economic Development Program of the Department of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Finding new archaeological sites is not always an easy job. In this province, archaeological sites do not always leave obvious traces on the ground surface, and so archaeologists use many different approaches to finding new sites. Our techniques might involve the newest modern technology, but they will also certainly involve good old-fashioned field work, and often, a healthy dose of good luck. One of the most important ways that archaeologists can find new sites, though, is to talk to the people who live in and around the places that we work. Often, the archaeologist’s first approach when visiting a region to look for new sites is to find the nearest community, and ask as many people as possible a simple question: “do you know of any place nearby where old artifacts have been found?” The responses we get often lead to the discovery of undocumented archaeological sites, which we can add to the growing database that tracks this province’s cultural heritage. Documenting new sites means recording them in detail: we record a site’s general location on a map and its exact location with a GPS, its condition, how old we think the site might be, and the cultural group that used the site—which is more complicated than it might seem, given Newfoundland and Labrador’s lengthy and varied human history. We take such care to document new sites because they are a non- renewable resource—once archaeological sites have been disturbed, either intentionally or accidentally, less of their story remains. With an intact site, we might be able to reconstruct a relatively complete history of the people who lived there, but once the site has been disturbed, our ability to interpret the site is dramatically reduced. As a group committed to the preservation of our shared archaeological heritage in this province, the Newfoundland and Labrador Archaeological Society continues the Community Collections Archaeological Research Project (CCARP) in 2015-2016. Made possible by funds from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Cultural Economic Development Program, this project’s goal is to document the privately-held collections that sit in basements, closets, and sheds across the province, and to give everyone a chance to see them and learn about them. Our aim is not to encourage private collection of artifacts, but rather to record these undocumented sites, as well as educate and inform people about what to do if you find an archaeological site. This is, after all, our collective heritage, meant to be shared by us all. It is with great pleasure that I present to you the latest Community Collections Archaeological Research Project, on the Andrews Collection, collected by Baxter Andrews on Cape Island, in Cape Freels, Newfoundland. On their walks along the beach, Mr. Andrews and his wife Bernice gathered these artifacts as they eroded out of sand banks. A detailed analysis by John Andrew Campbell, a Master’s student in the Department of Archaeology at Memorial University, has found that the collection contains a sweeping representation of the province’s prehistoric past. Without the actions of the Andrews in reporting these collections, we would know nothing of this site and these important artifacts. Our understanding of our province’s history is built by our collective actions: by people like Baxter and Bernice Andrews, by our province’s archaeologists like John Andrew Campbell, by the people in our Provincial Government who support our project with funding, and by the members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Archaeological Society who volunteer throughout the year. On behalf of the NLAS, thank you all for supporting the preservation of our shared archaeological heritage in Newfoundland and Labrador. Amanda Crompton NLAS President St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador February 17, 2016 Introduction This report focuses on archaeological materials collected by Baxter Andrews on Cape Island in Cape Freels, Newfoundland, (Fig. 1&2) between 1953 and 2010. Seventeen artifacts were surfaced collected by Mr. Andrews from eroding sand banks during walks along the beach with his wife Bernice. The artifacts represent six precontact cultures including: Maritime Archaic Indian (MAI), Dorset Palaeoeskimo (DPE), Cow Head Recent Indian (CRI), Beaches Recent Indian (BRI), and Little Passage Recent Indian-Beothuk (LPRIB). The collection was catalogued and photographed by the author in January 2016 on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Archaeological Society (NLAS) through the Figure 2. Aerial photograph of Cape Island. Community Collections Archaeological Research Project (CCARP). The objective of this project is to The following report is divided into two locate and engage with individual collectors of main sections. A brief background overview of archaeological remnants within the Province and to geographical location and synopses on cultural promote a trusting relationship which allows affinities associated with the Andrews Collection archaeologists to catalogue and analyze their will constitute the first section. This will be collections. This project also enables archaeologists followed by a succinct assessment of comparative to promote public education, awareness of heritage, lithic analysis primarily focusing on the Maritime and archaeological resources (NLAS 2014). Archaic Indian (MAI), the Beaches Recent Indian (BRI), and the Little Passage Recent Indian- Beothuk (LPRIB). A discussion, along with concluding remarks will be provided at the end of the report. Background Cape Island in Cape Freels, Newfoundland is a peninsula located on the northern edge of Bonavista Bay. Located along the Kittiwake Coast the peninsula where Cape Island is located is between Cape Cove to the north and Pinchard’s Bight to the southwest. The coastline, particularly to the north along Cape Cove, is dominated by windswept beaches (Fig. 2), where the eroding sand banks are heavily affected by the climate and unveil archaeological materials from their primary, or secondary contexts. Figure 1. Location of Cape Island, Cape Freels, Newfoundland.

Figure 3. The Andrew’s Collection recovered from eroding sandbanks in around Cape Island, Cape Freels, Newfoundland. Maritime Archaic Indian (MAI) notched and expanding stem made primarily of fine to coarse grained cherts and rhyolites The Maritime Archaic Indians were the first (Bell and Renouf 2006). Lacroix (2015b:142) people to inhabit, but were not restricted to, defines a “Bonavista Form” which consists of Newfoundland and Labrador with a thick base with an expanding stem and archaeological sites dating between 8,000 and regionally defines this lithic form primarily in 3,200 BP (years before present) (Bell and the Bonavista Bay region. Renouf 2003; Bell and Renouf 2006). The term “Maritime Archaic” characterizes the Dorset Palaeoeskimo (DPE) coastal facet of the economy (Tuck 1971; The Dorset Palaeoeskimos occupied the McGhee and Tuck 1975; Bell and Renouf Province between 2,000 and 1,200 BP and 2006), while also acknowledging interior begin to appear toward the end of the facets to their seasonal mobility (Fitzhugh Groswater Palaeoeskimo occupation between 1972; Tuck 1976). The presence of Maritime 2,800 and 1,900 BP (Renouf 1999:408; Archaic Indian chipped points (Fig. 3 A-C; Renouf 2005:58). Dorset lithic assemblages Fig. 4) in the Andrews Collection are typically includes: tip-fluted harpoon end representative of a southern variant of side-

blades, triangular and thumbnail endscrapers, asymmetrical bifacial knives, microblades, ground and polished burin-like tools; and rectangular soapstone lamps and pots (Renouf 1999). In the Andrews Collection (Fig. 3 D; Fig. 5) an unusual water-worn ground slate specimen is present and has been determined to be either a perforator or a skin-working tool (Lavers personal communication). Cow Head Recent Indian (CRI) The Cow Head Recent Indian occupied the Province between 2,000 and 1,050 BP and is the earliest and least understood complex within the four Recent Indian complexes (Erwin et. al. 2005:48; Lavers 2010:12-13). The Cow Head Complex is partially contemporaneous to the Beaches Complex in Figure 4. Maritime Archaic Indian chipped points. the Province, but the two are culturally unrelated (Pastore 2000:44; Hartley 2001; Teal 2001; Hull 2002). Hull (2002) states that the Cow Head Complex is ancestral to the Fléche littorale Complex, first located in Blanc Sablon on the Quebec Lower North Shore (Pintal 1998). In the Andrews Collection (Fig. 3 F; Fig. 6) one Cow Head heavily reworked point made from Cow Head chert, located on the western shore of the Northern Peninsula, displays a contracting stem (Tuck 1978). Beaches Recent Indian (BRI) The Beaches Recent Indian inhabited the Province between 1,900 and 1,000 BP and is widely regarded to be ancestral of the Little Passage Complex (Pastore 1985: 323; Hartley 2001; Holly 2002; Hull 2002). The lithic assemblage of the Beaches Complex includes: scrapers, triangular bifaces, linear blades, and side-notched projectile points (Fig. 3 E; Fig.7) (Erwin et. al. 2005). Contemporaneous Figure 5. Dorset Palaeoeskimo Perforator or skin- working tool

Figure 6. Flaked point of the Recent Indian- Cow Head Complex.

Figure 8. Transitional-Little Passage Recent Indian flaked point.

Figure 9. Corner-notched expanding stem (CNES) Figure 7. Flaked point of the Recent Indian-Beaches Little Passage Recent Indians-Beothuk points. Complex.

Andrews Collection a singular side notched point made of Cow Head chert is present. Little Passage Recent Indian-Beothuk (LPRIB) The Little Passage Recent Indian occupied the Province between 1,000 BP and European Contact (Pastore 1983; Penney 1984; Tuck 1982). The cultural descendants of the Little Passage self-identified to Europeans by their own name, the Beothuk (Howley 1915; Marshall 1996). Little Passage Complex lithic assemblages include: linear blades, thumbnail scrapers, small triangular bifaces, and distinctively, small corner-notched projectile Figure 10. Corner-Notched straight stem (CNSS) Little points (Fig. 3 H-M) (Tuck 1982:211; Pastore Passage Recent Indian-Beothuk point. 1983:139; Penney 1984:184; Erwin et. al.

2005:49). Subsistence strategies during the Little Passage period consisted of high residential mobility, small settlement size, and the adoption of a broad-based foraging strategy focused on inner coast resource diversity (Penney 1984; Cridland 1998; Rast 1999; Holly 2002). The transition between Beaches and Little Passage complexes, from side notched to corner-notched projectile points, has been thought to have occurred not only due to temporality, but is reflective of a technological revolution from dart technology to bow-and-arrow technology (Pastore 1992:10, Pastore 2000:44; Erwin et. al. Figure 11. Little Passage Recent Indian-Beothuk point 2005:49-50). Archaeological evidence preforms. Note the left specimen. suggests a duality of technological usage since early forms of Little Passage corner-notched points were used to tip darts and appear in the complexes, such as Point Revenge and Daniel archaeological record alongside smaller Rattle in Labrador and Lower North Shore corner-notched arrowheads (Erwin et. al 2005: Quebec share common attributes associated 59). with the Beaches Complex in the Province. With the Dorset Palaeoeskimo departing the The duality of this technology is island the Recent Indian populations adopted a evident within the Andrews Collection. The broader foraging strategy and more mobile transition between the Beaches and Little settlement patterns due to the decline of Passage is seen in a sole transitional Little ecological restrictions (Holly 2005). In the Passage point (Fig. 3G, Fig. 8), which shows

5 attributes of Little Passage while being far No collection of artifacts is complete larger than its counterparts. Diagnostic small without a head-scratching specimen and in this Little Passage- Beothuk projectile points are also present in the Andrews Collection (Fig. 3 H-K, Fig. 9, Fig. 10). There is a division of these points into two groups based on visual attributes: corner-notched expanding stem, or CNES, (Fig. 9) and corner-notched straight stem, or CNSS (Fig. 10). Schwarz (1984) states that the CNES was an early characteristic of the Little Passage and over time the stem stylization became CNSS. The Andrews Collection also has two Little Passage preforms (Fig. 11), one is classic of the triangular shape while the other exhibits a slight notch from flake reduction. Miscellaneous

This section is dedicated to those artifacts that do not have a diagnostic characteristic, nor Figure 12: Broken point tips. attribute, in which an archaeologist can confidently identify. In this case due to the out of context surface collecting a definite temporal placement cannot be established; context is everything. Instead of trying to establish what the context would have been able to say, the artifacts themselves can lend data on their own. The Andrews Collection contains three point tips (Fig. 3 N-P; Fig. 12) that did not fit with any other points in the collection. These point tips allow an archaeologist to interpret two interesting aspects: 1) the minimal number of individual (MNI) of points and 2) lithic material. A third point of flaking patterns could be employed, yet with the point tips being very water-worn this method was deemed unattainable. By using the two selected methodologies the collection has three other points and two of the point tips are made from a rhyolitic source and the third (Fig. 12 Right) has been identified as Cow Head Chert. Figure 13: Groundstone implement of unknown purpose. Possible plummet or knapping implement.

Analysis The Andrews Collection is comprised of artifacts that were surface collected and discovered out of primary or secondary contexts, which leaves any applicable analysis to be conducted on the artifacts themselves. Lithic analysis in this report focuses on the attributes of the points to examine not only how the points fit within their respective temporal perimeters, but also how they exhibit cultural and functional aspects (Rouse 1960). Certain artifacts have been excluded in this section due to lack of a comparable sample (CRI), the specimen’s uniqueness (DPE & Fig. 13), or undiagnostic and incomplete artifacts (Fig. 12). Cultural Complexes included in the analysis are the Maritime Archaic Indian (MAI), Beaches Recent Indian (BRI), and Little Passage Recent Indian- Beothuk (LPRIB). Analysis for the Little Passage is divided between the transitional LPRIB point, CNES and CNSS stylizations (Fig. 14). Analysis on the points was conducted by measuring the length, width, notch height, Figure 14. Defining attributes of the Recent Indian thickness and basal width of each point. Once Beaches and Little Passage-Beothuk Complexes. all the attributes were collected the number (Erwin et. al. 2005). (n), mean (), and standard deviation (σ) were case it is definitely not like the others (Fig.13). analyzed to establish attribute similarity within Seeing that it is not a projectile point, nor part comparative artifacts. of one, only a few hypotheses can be Maritime Archaic Indian (MAI) provided. The strongest of these focuses on the artifact as a flake reducing tool that would The Maritime Archaic points were not have aided the precontact knapper, especially comparatively analyzed due to the lack of with its billet form. access to comparable collections. Since there was no easily comparable collection, the Table 1. Metric attributes for the Maritime Archaic points.

Length Width Notch Height Thickness Base Width (mm) n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ Andrew's Collection 3 119.34 12.51 3 35.46 2.4 3 16.2 0.78 3 9.86 1.77 3 26.2 5.11

Table 2. Beaches Complex comparative metric attributes to previous research (Erwin et. al. 2005).

Length Width Notch Height Thickness Base Width

(mm) n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ SND 11 40.13 8.72 25 21.23 3.14 27 9.27 1.96 25 5.01 1.01 20 18.69 3.01

SNS 13 40.45 11.90 30 20.29 3.46 35 10.00 2.40 33 4.98 0.83 32 18.91 5.11

Total 24 40.30 10.35 55 20.72 3.32 62 9.68 2.23 58 5.00 0.90 52 18.83 4.39 Andrew's 1 48.49 1 24.95 1 14.64 1 4.49 1 25.97 Collection

Table 3. Transitional Little Passage metric attributes of corner notched expanded stem (CNES) points compared to previous research (Erwin et. al. 2005).

Length Width Notch Height Thickness Base Width (mm) n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ CNES 2 45.10 0.99 6 22.35 4.87 6 7.37 1.15 3 4.30 0.61 6 14.43 3.51 (Total) Andrew's 1 59.39 1 23.13 1 9.76 1 4.54 19.05 Collection

measurements taken are not as illustrative of Beaches Recent Indian (BRI) the culture and in this case the focus on Unlike the Maritime Archaic Indian specimens attributes was more meaningful (Table 1). the Beaches point in the collection (Fig. 3 E, Aside from being unable to discuss a regional Fig. 7) was measured and compared to analysis the focus will switch to lithic analysis previously conducted (Table 2) materials and interesting visible attributes. (Erwin et. al 2005). The lithic material of this One of the points (Fig. 3 A) is made from point appears to be Cow Head Chert located Trinity Bay Green Chert, another (Fig. 3 B) is on the southwestern coast of the Great from a rhyolitic source, specifically the Northern Peninsula. Analysis on the sole volcanic tuff, and (Fig. 3 C) is a coarse Beaches point in the Andrews Collection was grained rhyolite. All of these points possess a determined to be a side-notched straight (SNS) bulb of percussion on one of the basal corners, unlike other Beaches points which can be side- which unveils the process of reduction flaking. notched diagonal (SND). Due to the small These points have been assessed to be number of complete Beaches points both SND affiliated with the “Bonavista Form” discussed and SNS were totaled and compared to the by Lacroix (2015b) based on visual Andrews Collection specimen. This resulted comparison. in the

Table 4. Little Passage Corner-Notched Expanded Stem and Corner-Notched Straight Stem points compared to previous research (Erwin et. al. 2005).

Length Width Notch Height Thickness Base Width (mm) BORDEN SITE n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ n  σ DiAp-03 Boyd's Cove 10 25.82 5.72 12 13.52 2.34 15 6.81 2.19 13 3.15 0.70 12 7.84 1.99 DhAi-06 Cape Cove 2 3 26.67 4.04 4 13.95 1.10 3 5.60 0.96 5 3.58 0.64 3 5.30 1.31 ClAl-01 Frenchman's Island 11 25.60 6.69 19 15.80 3.11 19 5.97 1.62 19 3.57 0.97 17 8.77 2.10 DiAq-01 Inspector Island 8 28.11 3.93 13 18.10 2.46 15 6.91 1.65 16 4.34 1.09 13 10.95 3.38 CjAx-01 L'Anse A Flamme 27 25.52 4.64 33 14.83 2.69 39 5.77 1.06 39 3.48 1.00 34 8.21 2.14 CNES CiAj-01 Russell's Point 92 25.50 5.62 139 14.39 3.36 155 6.24 1.50 153 3.68 0.96 125 8.02 2.71 Other 17 26.29 6.32 24 15.81 4.00 28 5.80 1.34 30 3.79 1.20 25 8.66 2.83 Total 168 25.76 5.48 244 14.85 3.34 274 6.17 1.51 275 3.67 1.00 229 8.29 2.69 Andrew's

Collection 3 28.54 4.08 3 17.65 1.52 3 7.95 0.22 3 4.45 0.73 3 12.78 2.93 DiAp-03 Boyd's Cove 4 22.20 8.38 5 11.16 2.39 4 4.68 1.30 5 2.70 0.83 4 4.25 0.69 DhAi-06 Cape Cove 2 1 24.00 3 13.67 2.93 3 5.43 1.44 3 3.00 0.00 3 3.67 0.29 ClAl-01 Frenchman's Island 3 20.83 4.24 3 13.13 1.86 3 6.00 1.87 3 3.33 1.96 3 6.83 1.68 DiAq-01 Inspector Island 1 12.00 1 6.00 1 4.30 1 7.00 CjAx-01 L'Anse A Flamme 2 27.00 0.00 4 15.20 2.11 4 5.63 0.57 4 2.63 0.15 2 6.65 1.20 CNSS CiAj-01 Russell's Point 24 24.04 6.56 32 12.96 3.81 30 5.43 1.50 32 3.43 1.28 28 5.21 1.73 Other 4 21.90 2.41 4 11.58 1.10 5 5.64 2.19 5 3.10 0.91 4 5.00 1.66 Total 38 23.52 5.98 52 12.88 3.31 50 5.45 1.47 53 3.26 1.16 45 5.21 1.68 Andrew's

Collection 1 31.33 1 19.02 1 6.17 1 3.86 1 6.36

Beaches point being larger than the research that was conducted in order to comparative average in length, width, notch examine evidence of when bow-and-arrow height, and basal width, yet fits well within the technology came to Newfoundland (Table 4) standard deviation. An interesting attribute, (Erwin et. al. 2005). Their analysis included like that of the MAI points, the Beaches point some important Little Passage sites including: exhibited a bulb of percussion in one of the Boyd’s Cove (Pastore 1983, 1985, 1992), basal corners. For its larger size overall it can Russell’s Point (Gilbert 2002), and L’Anse A be interpreted that the point from the Andrews Flamme (Penney 1981). The CNES from the Collection should be seen as a dart point and a Andrews collection was compared to 168 good comparative when looking at complete specimens concluding that transitional Little Passage points. everything except notch height and basal width were similar to the mean, but each Little Passage Recent Indian-Beothuk (LPRIB) attribute falls within the standard deviation of As aforementioned the Little Passage points the comparative collection. The CNES have been divided into three separate groups: unveiled the familiar feature of a bulb of transitional CNES (Table 3), CNES, and percussion on one of the basal corners of the CNSS (Table 4). These points are divided into expanding stem. such categories due to temporality, culture and The corner-notched straight stem functionality. (CNSS) has been seen as temporally later than The transitional Little Passage point the CNES points from the same complex. The (Fig. 3 G, Fig. 8) was compared to other decision to separate these was to observe if transitional points stylistically falling between there was a greater difference between the two the Beaches and Little Passage complexes, but styles and if the CNSS was different within its showing more attributable connection to the own classification (Table 4). The specimen latter complex. The specimen appears to be from the Andrews Collection exhibited a made out of a fine grained chert of unknown larger mean in each category compared to not source. When compared to the only other two only other CNSS, but also CNES, yet the points of this style existing, it compares well specimen is within the standard deviation of within the mean and standard deviation of the comparative artifacts. Unlike the other each attribute with the exception of length points observed in the analysis, this point (Table 3). The length of the Andrews exhibited a striking platform directly on the Collection specimen speaks to either base of the stem. idiosyncratic manufacture, or the use or reuse Conclusion of the two other artifacts. This report summarizes the Andrews The corner-notched expanding stem (CNES), Collection recovered from Cape Island, Cape and the corner-notched straight stem (CNSS) Freels, Newfoundland. The Andrews Little Passage points are made up of different Collection beneficially contributes in materials such as: Trinity Bay Chert (Fig. 3 H, attempting to further comprehend the cultures Fig. 9 Left), Cow Head Chert (Fig. 3 I, Fig. 9 and people who inhabited the island of Right), Chalcedony (Fig 3. J, Fig. 10) and an Newfoundland before European arrival. unknown rhyolite (Fig. 3 K, Fig. 9 Center). Although these artifacts were found out of These points were compared to previous context, it is important to seek and engage

10 with private collectors whose collection Acknowledgments contributes pieces to an overwhelmingly large The author would like to extend his gratitude puzzle. The absence of archaeological context to the Andrews family, specifically Baxter and is like a page being removed from a book Bernice for finding these insightful specimens (Anstey 2014), but this view can become of the past during their walks along the beach. subjective when the context is blown away in The Community Collections Archaeology the wind; literally. Salvaging is considered the Research Project was funded through the last means in which one can collect artifacts, Cultural Economic Development Program- and it is the archaeologist who must come to Heritage, Department of Tourism, Culture and terms with environmental change. Recreation. Email correspondences and Archaeology is a destructive science, by one’s meetings with Lori Temple, Collections own hand, or the environment. When coming Manager of Archaeology and Ethnology at across something that could be of The Rooms Provincial Museum, Stephen Hull, archaeological importance always take note of Provincial Archaeology Office, and Tim Rast where the object was found, what time frame of the NLAS were helpful in pointing the was it found, and contact the Provincial author in the right direction. Additional Archaeology Office. Thankfully, the artifacts gratitude is extended to Dominique Lavers for in the Andrews Collection were recovered and her insight and discussions, as well as Jessica allowed to be analyzed toward a greater Munkittrick for all of her help and support to understanding of the past. It is with the hope the author throughout the entire process. of both the author and the NLAS that this report will encourage more people to come forward with their collections and instead of removing the artifacts themselves, to report such discoveries to the Provincial Archaeology Office.

References Anstey, R. 2014 A Report on the James Anstey Archaeology Collection From Back Harbour, Twillingate. Community Collections Archaeological Research Project, Newfoundland and Labrador Archaeology Society Vol. 1. Bell, T. and M.A.P. Renouf 2003. Prehistoric Cultures Reconstructed Coasts: Maritime Archaic Indian Site Distribution in Newfoundland. World Archaeology 35(3):350-370. 2006 Maritime Archaic Site Locations on the Island of Newfoundland. In The Archaic of the Far Northeast. Edited by D. Sanger and M.A.P. Renouf. pp. 1-46. The University of Maine Press: Orono, Maine. Cridland, J. 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, St. John’s. Erwin, J.C., Holly, D.H., Jr., Hull, S.H., and T.L. Rast 2005 Form and Function of Projectile Points and Trajectory of Newfoundland Prehistory. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 29: 46-67. Fitzhugh, W. 1972 Environmental Archaeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 16. Washington, D.C. Gilbert, W. 2002 Russell’s Point (CiAj-1): A Little Passage/Beothuk Site at the Bottom of Trinity Bay. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Hartley, L.J. 2001 Cow Head Complex. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary. Holly, D.H., Jr. 2002 From Space to Place: An Archaeology and Historical Geography of the Recent Indian period in Newfoundland. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence. 2005 The Place of Others in Hunter-Gatherer Intensification. American Anthropologist 107(2): 207-220. Howley, J.P. 1915 The Beothucks or Red Indians, The Aboriginal Inhabitants of Newfoundland. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Hull, S.H. 2002 Tanite uet tshinauetamin? A Trail to Labrador: Recent Indians and the North Cove Site. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s.

Lacroix, D. 2015b Mobility, Ceremonialism and Group Identity in Archaic Newfoundland. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Lavers, D. 2010 The Recent Indian Cow Head Complex Occupation of the Northern Peninsula, Newfoundland: A Geochemical Investigation of Cow Head Chert Acquisition. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Marshall, I. 1996 A History and Ethnography of the Beothuk Indians. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. McGhee, R.J. and J.A. Tuck 1975 An Archaic Sequence from the Strait of Belle Isle, Labrador. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series No. 34. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. NLAS (Newfoundland and Labrador Archaeology Society) 2014 2014-2017 Activity Plan. Newfoundland and Labrador Archaeology Society, St. John’s. Pastore, R.T. 1983 A Preliminary Report on Investigations at Boyd’s Cove-1, A Beothuk and Recent Indian Site in Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland. In Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador, 1982. Edited by J-S. Thomson and C. Thomson. pp.133-160. Historic Resources Division, Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s. 1985 Excavations at Boyd’s Cove-1984. Edited by J-S. Thomson and C. Thomson. pp. 322-337. Historic Resources Division, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s. 1992 Shawadithit’s People. Atlantic Archaeology, St. John’s. 2000 Recent Indian Peoples and the Norse. In Full Circle: First Contact. Edited by K.E. McAleese. pp. 43-47. Newfoundland Museum, St. John’s. Penney, G. 1981 A Preliminary Report on the Excavation of the L’Anse a Flamme Site (CjAx-1). In Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1980. Edited by J-S Thomson and B. Ransom. pp. 95-110. Historic Resources Division Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s. 1984 The Prehistory of the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Pintal, J.-Y. 1998 Aux Frontières de la mer: La prèhistorie de Blanc-Sablon. Gouvernement du Quèbec, Ministère de la culture et des communications, Quèbec.

Rast, T.L. 1999 Investigating Palaeo-Eskimo and Indian Settlement Patterns along a Submerging Coast at Burgeo, Newfoundland. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Renouf, M.A.P. 1999 Prehistory of Newfoundland Hunter-Gatherers: Extinctions or Adaptations? World Archaeology 30(3): 403-420. 2005 Phillip’s Garden West: A Newfoundland Groswater Variant. In Contributions to the Study of the Dorset Palaeo-Eskimos. Edited by P.D. Sutherland. pp. 57-80. Mercury Series Archaeology Paper 167, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau. Rouse, I. 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25: 313-323. Schwarz, F.A. 1984 Little Passage Complex in Newfoundland, A Comparative Study of Assemblages. Unpublished Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of e Newfoundland, St. John’s. Teal, M. 2001 An Archaeological Investigation of the Gould Site (EeBi-42) in Port au Choix, Northwestern Newfoundland: New Insight into the Recent Indian Cow Head Complex. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Tuck, J.A. 1971 An Archaic Cemetery at Port au Choix, Newfoundland. American Antiquity 36: 343-358. 1976 Ancient People of Port au Choix. ISER Press, St. John’s. 1978 Excavations at Cow Head, Newfoundland: An Interim Report. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(1): 138-141. 1982 Prehistoric Archaeology in Atlantic Canada since 1975. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6: 201-218.