The Ties that Bind and Divide: Encounters with the Beothuk in
Southeastern Newfoundland
Donald H. Holly, Jr.1.*, Christopher Wolff
2, and John Erwin3
Abstract - Encounters between Europeans and the Beothuk in southeastern Newfoundland took a variety of forms in the
sixteenth and early seventeenth century. There is evidence to suggest some trade, but also scavenging, theft, mutual hostility,
and avoidance. By the middle of the seventeenth century, relations had deteriorated to the point that the Beothuk
retreated from this area to points north and west. This paper examines the nature of Beothuk-European relations during the
early contact period as it is evident in the archaeological and historic record of southeastern Newfoundland, including new
evidence from the site of Stock Cove, and suggests that the failure of the Beothuk and Europeans to solidify and sustain
relations was due to the unpredictable nature of the encounter experience. Ultimately, this failure would play a significant
role in the demise of the Beothuk.
1Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL 61920, USA. 2Department of
Anthropology, NMNH MRC-138, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA. 3Provincial Archaeology Office,
Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s, NL A1B 4J6,
Canada. *Corresponding author - dhholly@eiu.edu.
Introduction: Trinity Bay, 1612
In the autumn of 1612, John Guy, then governor
of Newfoundland’s first official colony, set sail from
Cupers Cove with fellow colonists into Trinity Bay.
It was a voyage of discovery and commerce. The aim
was to explore the Bay and establish friendly trading
relations with the native peoples of the island, the
Beothuk. It was a success. After days of exploring
the deep recesses of Trinity Bay, noting unoccupied
Beothuk campsites along the shores and spotting
the Beothuk at a distance, Guy’s crew finally made
contact with a small party of Beothuk Indians on 6
November 1612 (Fig. 1). That afternoon, the crew
spotted smoke in the vicinity of Bull Arm. Upon
2010 Journal of the North Atlantic 3:31–44
Figure 1. A depiction of Guy’s meeting with the Beothuk in 1612 (Merian 1628). See Gilbert (2007) for discussion of this
illustration. Courtesy of the Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
32 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 3
investigating, Guy’s crew met a small party of
Beothuk men on the shore. Although initially wary,
the Beothuk initiated a series of actions that seemed
to be aimed at establishing their friendly intentions:
a white wolf’s skin was waved and headless arrowshafts
were offered to the colonists, accompanied
by singing and dancing. The colonists followed suit,
waving a white flag, joining the Beothuk in dance,
and offering them various items including “bread,
butter and reasons [raisins] of the sun to eate, and
beere and aquavitae to drinke” (Cell 1982:74). Then
the party shared a meal of smoked caribou meat and
wild roots. As dusk fell, a prominent member of the
Beothuk party gave the colonists the white animal
skin that earlier had been presented as a token of
peace and took their white flag in exchange. Then
the Beothuk departed.
Eager to further develop this relationship, the
colonists started to construct a small trading post
the following day, but worsening weather conditions
forced them to depart on November 8th (Gilbert
1990:159). On their way, the colonists spied animal
furs, shell necklaces, and other items on display in a
prominent location. Taking the clue that the Beothuk
wished to trade, Guy’s party landed at the spot, took
several of the displayed items and left a hatchet,
knife, scissors, and sewing needles in their place.
Then they sailed for home, no doubt pleased with
their encounter and the prospects of establishing
a profitable trade with the natives. However, such
hopes were never realized. Subsequent attempts by
the colonists to sustain trading relations with the natives
were largely unsuccessful, and by the middle of
the seventeenth century the Beothuk had abandoned
the area (Gilbert 2002:43–45). For the next hundred
years or so, a pattern of indifference and avoidance
would characterize the state of relations between
Europeans and the Beothuk. In the eighteenth century,
the expansion and growing permanence of
European settlement on the island would lead to
competition and conflict, and with guns and numbers
in the settlers’ favor, the Beothuk were compelled to
retreat into the interior of the island (Holly 2008).
By the turn of the nineteenth century, the Beothuk
had dwindled in number, and soon after they disappeared.
The fate of the Beothuk people did not turn
in Trinity Bay in the autumn of 1612, but it is as
good a place and date as any to ponder the path
that Beothuk-European relations would take in the
next two centuries. There is good reason to suggest
that the Beothuk had some amicable experiences
with Europeans—including trade—prior to the time
of Guy’s voyage into Trinity Bay (Cell 1969:68,
Gilbert 1992). Early familiarity with Europeans is
evident in Guy’s account, the recovery of possible
trade items at Beothuk sites, and hearsay by the
colonists and other early observers. But this reading
of sometimes friendly Beothuk-European relations
in the early historic period would soon be replaced
by a narrative dominated by accounts of the Beothuk
avoiding Europeans, a growing chorus of fishermen
and settler complaints regarding Beothuk “thievery”,
and an archaeological record of “scavenging”
on the part of the natives.
Scholars of early Newfoundland history have
long been intrigued by these developments, particularly
the general absence of European-Beothuk
relations and the plausible role that this might have
played in the demise of the Beothuk. To date, two explanations
have dominated these discussions (Holly
2000). The first, advocated by noted Beothuk scholar
Ingeborg Marshall (1996), anchors the Beothuk
pattern of avoidance to a particular world view and
culture. The second, advanced by the late historian
Ralph Pastore (1987), frames Beothuk (and European)
avoidance largely in economic terms. In this
paper, we present an alternative position, one that
emphasizes the role that “social unpredictability”
played in hindering efforts to establish and sustain
relations during the early contact period. We also offer
a picture of the situation on the ground, through a
review and discussion of the archaeological record
of contact-era Beothuk sites in the region, including
recent work by the authors at Stock Cove (CkAl-3;
Fig. 2)—the probable site where John Guy observed
“nine savage [houses]” in 1612 (Gilbert 1990:157,
161).
An Archaeological Overview
The Beothuk’s tenure on the island extends back
at least 1500 years. Shortly after the turn of the
first millennium A.D., archaeologists recognize the
presence of new Amerindian peoples on the island.
Diversity in the material culture of these early immigrants
may suggest that several different Amerindian
groups were part of the settlement process (Hartery
2007, Hull 2002, Pastore 2000, Teal 2001). This
possibility, combined with the complex processes
by which ethnicity is crafted and asserted, makes it
difficult to draw a direct line from the ancient past
to historic Beothuk; nonetheless, it is safe to assume
that what we have come to think of as “Beothuk”
emerged out of this early matrix of settlers.
These settlers joined Paleoeskimo peoples, who
had already been living on the island for hundreds
of years by the time the Amerindians arrived. The
two groups would co-exist on the island for nearly
a thousand years, at which point the Paleoeskimos
(Dorset) disappear from the archaeological record.
The cause for this, and the fate of the Newfoundland
Dorset, is the subject of much discussion and debate
(Bell and Renouf 2008; Holly, in press; Renouf
2010 Donald H. Holly, Jr., Christopher Wolff, and John Erwin 33
1999; Tuck and Pastore 1985), but the consequences
of the Dorset’s “failure” for Amerindian peoples
is not. With the Dorset out of the way, Amerindian
peoples soon expanded into coastal locations that
had previously been home to their Paleoeskimo
neighbors (Renouf 2003:9–10, Renouf and Bell
2009). The Amerindian inheritors of this landscape
are known to archaeologists through their material
culture: the Little Passage complex.
The Little Passage complex was first recognized
with Gerald Penney’s (1981, 1984) work at the
L’Anse à Flamme site, on the island’s south coast.
The complex dates between A.D. 1000 and A.D.
1500 (contact), and is characterized by linear flakes,
triangular bifaces, thumbnail scrapers, and small
corner-notched projectile points—most of which
appear to have functioned as arrowheads (Erwin et
al. 2005). Little Passage sites are small and nondescript.
Structural remains are rare. Indeed, many
sites amount to little more than lithic scatters. Little
Passage sites also tend to cluster on the coast, especially
in sheltered bays and inlets, leading one to the
impression that these people can best be described as
mobile and generalized coastal foragers who made
seasonal use of the near-coastal interior to hunt
caribou (Gilbert 2002, Holly 2002, Rowley-Conwy
1990, Schwarz 1994). Faunal evidence, although
rather paltry, supports this assertion. It suggests
that Little Passage groups targeted a broad range of
coastal and terrestrial resources when at or close to
the coast (Cridland 1998, Gilbert 2002:91–98, Holly
2002) and caribou when farther inland (Penney
1990:4)
Figure 2. Trinity Bay, Newfoundland.
34 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 3
The Late Prehistoric Period in Southeastern
Newfoundland
Little Passage sites in southeastern Newfoundland
broadly reflect subsistence and settlement
trends seen elsewhere on the island, but there are
some differences. On the north and west coast, harp
seals could be intercepted in open water as they
made their way south in early winter, and hunted on
the pack ice when they returned north in the early
spring. If historic herd positions are indicative of
those in the past, it would have been more difficult
for foragers residing in southeastern Newfoundland
to do this. Harp seals are not as numerous nor as accessible
in southeastern Newfoundland as they are
farther north and west. Nonetheless, archaeological
evidence suggests that harp seals were occasionally
taken by people living in Trinity Bay (Gilbert
2006:3, Nomokonova 2010).
In all likelihood, harbor and grey seals would
have figured more prominently in the diet of people
living in southeastern Newfoundland. Unlike harp
seals, harbor and grey seals are non-migratory species.
They remain close to shore in the spring and
summer, and in the vicinity during the ice-covered
winter months. The proximity of these seal species
in the spring and summer, together with the wide
array of coastal resources available at this time,
may account for the presence of Little Passage sites
on the coast in southeastern Newfoundland. It is
possible, however, that coastal locations were also
frequented in autumn and/or early spring.
In southeastern Newfoundland, Little Passage/
Beothuk material has been recovered from Frenchman’s
Island (ClAl-1), Stock Cove (CkAl-3), and
Sampson’s Head Cove (CkAl-4), all in Bull Arm,
at the bottom of Trinity Bay (Fig. 2). The Frenchman’s
Island site was excavated over the course of
two seasons in the early 1980s. These excavations
yielded pre-contact and European material. The Little
Passage component at the site is represented by
triangular bifaces, retouched flakes, corner-notched
projectile points, and a scraper. In the eastern area
of the site, Little Passage material overlaid an older
Dorset Paleoeskimo occupation. In the western portion,
Little Passage material was associated with a
small deposit of fire-cracked rock, unidentified bird
and mammal bones, clam shells, and some European
objects (Evans 1982). The association of the
Little Passage material and European objects will
be discussed later, but the nature of the Little Passage
material at the site broadly suggests a small
encampment. Additional work at the site (see Mills
and Gaulton 2010), however, may soon modify this
interpretation.
The Stock Cove site was first excavated in the
early 1980s under the direction of Douglas Robbins,
then a graduate student at Memorial University of
Newfoundland. His excavations revealed a thin Amerindian
deposit that broadly overlaid, but was also
mixed within, a rich Dorset Paleoeskimo stratum.
Robbins’ M.A. Thesis (1985) primarily focused
on the Dorset component at the site. As a consequence,
the Amerindian occupation at Stock Cove
has received relatively little attention. Descriptions
of the Amerindian material by Robbins (1982) and
visual inspection of his collections by the authors of
this paper indicate, however, a small but significant
Little Passage presence at the site too. Robbins excavations
at Stock Cove yielded nearly three dozen
straight-stemmed and corner-notched projectile
points, seventeen triangular bifaces, and eight endscrapers
(Robbins 1982:203). He noted that many of
these objects were recovered from a 3-m oval concentration
of rocks and cobbles (Robbins 1982:198),
although it is difficult to verify the distribution with
the published reports.
In the summer of 2008, Wolff returned to Stock
Cove and excavated a series of test pits to evaluate
the depositional and cultural history of the site. At
that time, Wolff recovered Recent Indian material,
primarily associated with the Little Passage complex,
in low frequencies in almost every part of the
site that was tested, along with thick Dorset deposits
(Wolff et al. 2009). In 2009, the authors returned to
Stock Cove to excavate a small area (6 m2, ≈65 cm
deep) approximately 12 m west of Robbins’ earlier
excavation (Wolff et al. 2010) (Fig. 3). This area
had been identified by Wolff in 2008 as having strata
containing both Recent Indian and Dorset material.
Our excavations in this area in 2009 broadly support
Robbins’ interpretations. We recovered eight
small projectile points and two triangular bifaces
made from several varieties of chert (Fig. 4). One
projectile point was found at a depth of 32 cm from
the surface, but most of the Little Passage material
was recovered between 9 and 21 cm and above the
Dorset Paleoeskimo material. We did not discern
any Little Passage features, although like Robbins
we did encounter an incredibly rich Dorset Paleoeskimo
stratum and exposed part of what we believe
to be a Dorset Paleoeskimo dwelling. Clearly, the
Dorset component overshadows the Little Passage
component at Stock Cove. Nonetheless, the collective
yield of Little Passage material suggests a significant presence of late prehistoric Amerindians at
the site too. What this presence represents is unclear.
To date, the high number of projectile points recovered
relative to other tool types, in combination
with the apparent absence of associated structural
remains, hearths and middens, suggests that the site
represents specialized hunting activities rather than
an area of sustained habitation. It is quite possible,
however, that the habitation area of the site has not
been located.
2010 Donald H. Holly, Jr., Christopher Wolff, and John Erwin 35
The Samson’s Head Cove site (CkAl-4) is situated
about halfway between Stock Cove and Frenchman’s
Island. It was discovered in 1990 by Callum
Thomson in the course of an environmental impact
survey. Like all of the sites discussed so far, Samson’s
Head yielded material from several different
cultural occupations. A Little Passage component
was identified just beneath the peat in a thick black
soil horizon (Thomson 1990:17). Diagnostic material
from the Little Passage component amounted
to a single corner-notched projectile point, a couple
of triangular bifaces, and an end-scraper (Thomson
1990: plate 11). Earlier Amerindian (Beaches complex)
artifacts were found just beneath this horizon
together with faunal material and charcoal dated to
830 ± 130 B.P. (Beta 35837, wood charcoal); calibrated
A.D. 1033–1290. The date obtained from the
charcoal is rather late for the Beaches Complex. This
finding could suggest that it and some of the faunal
material are associated with the Little Passage component
of the site.
Faunal material from the Samson’s Head Cove
site speaks to interesting aspects of land-use strategies
in the region. The faunal remains from Samson’s
Head Cove included beaver, caribou, thick-billed
murre, sea urchin, and clam shells, as well as unidentified mammal remains. This faunal evidence,
particularly the presence of thick-billed murre bones,
could suggest an occupation between late fall and
early spring (Thomson 1990:20–1). In addition, the
presence of beaver and caribou point to terrestrial
Figure 3. Excavations at Stock Cove (CkAl-3), 2009.
Figure 4. Little Passage/Beothuk projectile points recovered
from Stock Cove (CkAl-3) in 2009.
36 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 3
hunting activities at a time when these people were
obviously living on the coast. Terrestrial resources
at a coastal site is not unanticipated, as Little Passage
peoples are thought to have pursued a wide range
of resources from centrally located coastal camps
in the inner reaches of bays and inlets. In addition,
both caribou and beaver can be found close to coastal
areas in many parts of the island. Rather, the signifi-
cance is that the Bull Arm sites are all situated on the
shores of the narrow Isthmus of Avalon. From here,
residents would have been able to access and monitor
coastal resources easily, including those in Placentia
Bay (a mere 10 km across the isthmus) and intercept
caribou on the Isthmus of Avalon. The latter advantage
may have been a more important consideration
for people residing in the Bull Arm area. With this
in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that the largest
Little Passage site on the island—Russell’s Point—is
located at the far eastern end of the isthmus, directly
in the path of migrating caribou.
Russell’s Point (CiAj-1) is a remarkable site.
Excavated by William Gilbert (2002) between 1994
and 1997, the site appears to represent a fall and
winter base camp used by Little Passage, and later,
Beothuk peoples. Gilbert identified over a dozen
hearth features and recovered over 1200 artifacts at
the site—including 368 projectile points. The sheer
abundance of artifacts combined with radiocarbon
dates spanning six hundred years (Gilbert 2002:60)
indicates that this had been an attractive location
for the Beothuk and their ancestors for quite some
time. Caribou was likely the main draw. Russell’s
Point is located on the shores of Dildo Pond. It is an
ideal spot to intercept caribou, a fact supported by
faunal evidence from the site and historic observations
(Gilbert 2000). Beaver were also available in
the area (see Gilbert 2002:95–96). And Dildo Pond
offers easy access to the bottom of Trinity Bay—just
a short portage from the northern end of the pond—
and the marine resources that could be found there.
Accordingly, like Samson’s Head Cove and other
sites in Bull Arm, Russell’s Point gave Little Passage
peoples a variety of subsistence options—and
the fact that seal bones were found at Russell’s Point
(Gilbert 2002:80–2) and caribou at Samson’s Head
Cove (Thomson 1990:20) indicates that such options
were often exercised.
Little Passage sites are rare east of the Isthmus
of Avalon. There are a couple of reasons why this
might be the case. One possibility is that coastal
erosion and hundreds of years of development in
this relatively populated area have taken a toll on
the archaeological record. Another is that the absence
of Little Passage sites on the eastern end of the
Peninsula reflects a real pattern of land-use by late
prehistoric peoples. While coastal sites are still to be
expected, if Russell’s Point offers a clue, it could be
that caribou were more important to Little Passage
and (early contact) Beothuk peoples on the Avalon
Peninsula than coastal resources, and that the bulk of
sites that exist are located in the largely unexplored
interior of the Peninsula (R. Gaulton 2001). Historic
observations of the Avalon caribou herd indicate
that the herd was once much larger and widespread
than it is today (Mercer et al. 1985:20). In addition,
the rather limited yearly range of the Avalon herd
(see Bergerud et al. 1983) and comparatively low
amount of snowfall on the Peninsula when compared
to the central interior of the island, might have made
it easier for people to monitor caribou herd movements.
Thus, people on the Avalon Peninsula may
have established larger settlements in the near interior
during the fall and winter and made little and less
intensive use of the coast in the spring and summer—
essentially the opposite pattern from the Bull Arm
area. If this was indeed the case, it could help explain
the relative absence of Little Passage sites east of the
Isthmus when compared to those farther to the west.
Archaeological surveys in the interior of the Avalon
Peninsula would help test this proposition.
The Beothuk in Southeastern Newfoundland
The arrival of Europeans in the early sixteenth
century is the point at which archaeologists mark the
end of the Little Passage complex. Thereafter, the
people who made Little Passage tools are referred to
as the Beothuk. But identifying the Beothuk in the
early historic record is no easy feat. Early voyages
to the island, if recorded at all, often either made no
mention of the native peoples or else addressed them
so broadly and the geography so vaguely as to make
it difficult to determine who exactly was being observed.
Moreover, descriptions that made it into print
were often secondhand—or worse—recollections,
sometimes written years after the event. As such, the
early historic record is peppered with accounts of
godless people who drank blood, practiced cannibalism,
and lived in caves (see Marshall 1996:14–21).
But if identifying the Beothuk in early documents
is a daunting task, identifying the early historic era
Beothuk in the archaeological record is even more
trying. The only way to identify the “Beothuk” unambiguously
in the archaeological record is with the
presence of modified European implements, such as
iron nails hammered into arrowheads, or less convincingly
with unmodified implements firmly associated
with stone tools. Without such supporting evidence,
historic Beothuk Indians run the risk of being
identified as late prehistoric Little Passage peoples.
Indeed, it is quite possible that some of the “Little
Passage” material found at the sites discussed thus
far may represent the work of Beothuk Indians of the
early historic period. Furthermore, radiometric dating
2010 Donald H. Holly, Jr., Christopher Wolff, and John Erwin 37
offers little help; the resolution of carbon 14 dating,
as expressed in error rate, is simply too coarse to distinguish
early historic from late prehistoric material.
With these limitations in mind, current evidence
suggests that the Beothuk in the sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries favored sheltered locations in
the deep recesses of bays and inlets in the spring and
summer and the near interior in the fall and winter.
In this way, the Beothuk of the early historic period
resembled their Little Passage predecessors. At the
same time, early contact with Europeans could have
changed the tenor of the Beothuk economy in significant ways. The Beothuk spent most of the spring
and summer close to the shore, hunting harbor seals,
collecting bird eggs, and perhaps fishing too (Marshall
1996). This pattern would have put them on the
coast at the time when European fishermen would
have been arriving to engage in the seasonal cod
fishery. Beothuk access to some coastal locations,
particularly bird colonies (see Pope 2009), was
likely negatively impacted by these developments.
Evidence from Samson’s Head Cove (CkAl-4)
suggests that the Beothuk in southeastern Newfoundland
might have visited the coast in the fall
and maybe even the winter too—and if they were
not at the coast at this time of the year, they clearly
would have been very close to it (see Russell’s Point;
CiAj-1). As discussed earlier, the strategic advantage
offered by the bottom of Trinity Bay and the adjacent
isthmus of the Avalon Peninsula is that it gave
residents the ability to keep one foot in the interior
and another on the coast. From here, the Beothuk
could easily monitor a variety of environments and
resources within a relatively short distance. They
could also monitor Europeans.
The nature of early Beothuk interactions with
Europeans is not understood, owing to the poor
documentary record. It is likely, however, that early
interactions defy generalization. One must consider,
for instance, the number of potential actors involved
at the time. The early European fishery in Newfoundland
engaged fishermen from all across Western Europe:
Basques, Bretons, Dutch, French, English, and
Portuguese (Pope 2004). While ships hailing from
different nations may have favored particular areas
in Newfoundland, this might have been lost on, or
mattered little, to highly mobile coastal foragers like
the Beothuk. In addition, one cannot assume that
“national” policy or custom dictated the conditions
under which interactions took place. There was great
variation within and between fishing fleets, vessels,
and crews. When you also consider crew turnover
from year to year and the varying New World experience
and temperament of fishing crews and pirates,
it is quite possible that each ship or crew represented
a potentially different encounter experience: there
might be bloodshed or trade—enslavement or indifference.
This social unpredictability would be different
than that expected between resident indigenous
peoples and established settler communities. In the
latter scenario, a history of relations could be used
to predict future encounters. Policies, or at least customs,
would have dictated rules of engagement, and
a community of actors with some tenure in the place
and familiarity with the “other” would have helped
to establish reasonable expectations for encounter
experiences. This was not, however, the situation in
sixteenth-century Newfoundland. At that time, the
potential outcomes of encounters between mobile
Beothuk hunters and gatherers and diverse European
fishing crews were varied and uncertain.
While the nature of early encounters is not understood,
it is quite clear from the archaeological
and historical evidence that the Beothuk had some
access to European goods from a very early date.
The acquisition of goods likely assumed the form of
direct trade with Europeans (including silent trade),
indirect exchange through native allies, and scavenging.
An account as early as 1501, from Gaspar
de Côrte Real’s journey through the Strait of Belle
Isle, for instance, mentions a broken sword and silver
rings in the possession of the native people he
captured (Marshall 1996:15–6). As with other earlier
documents, it is difficult to assess who these people
were and where they were from. It is possible that
they were Montagnais, Beothuk, or perhaps even
St. Lawrence Iroquois or Inuit, and that the event
occurred either on the mainland coast of Québec and
Labrador or on the island of Newfoundland. In this
case, however, the specific identity of the people and
place might not matter, as historic and archaeological
evidence suggests that the Strait of Belle Isle was a
hub of activity, interaction, and exchange among different
peoples (Hull 2002, Jukes 1842, Martijn 1990,
2009; Martijn and Dorais 2001, cf. Robbins 1989).
Accordingly, if people on one side of the Strait had
access to European goods, it is quite possible that
those on the other side did too, if only indirectly
through native channels. Indeed, given evidence to
suggest that Native-European trade in the Strait of
Belle Isle was occurring with some frequency by the
middle of the sixteenth century (Barkham 1980:53–
54; Trigger and Swagerty 1996:350–1; Turgeon
1990:83, 1998), this scenario seems rather plausible.
A better case for the Beothuk having access to European
goods dates to 1594, when observers noted
a campsite adjacent to a couple of shipwrecks that
were apparently being scavenged by native people
in St. George’s Bay (Quinn 1979: 64).
The best evidence for Beothuk possession of European
goods comes from the accounts of John Guy’s
voyage into Trinity Bay in 1612. Guy’s party visited
several Beothuk campsites during the course of their
expedition. One campsite they visited appears to be
38 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 3
but some objects may indicate a Beothuk presence as
well. Excavations revealed a midden feature consisting
of clam shells, unidentified animal remains,
rich black soil, and fire-cracked rock. The midden
feature also contained “Little Passage” stone tools
and debris, iron nails, lead shot, ballast flint, bottle
glass, coarse earthenware, and an unusual cache of
clay pipe stems and some bowl fragments (Evans
1981:89–90, 1982:214). Evans (1982:215) interprets
this as a case of mixing, and dismisses the possibility
that the Little Passage (“prehistoric”) lithic
material represents a Beothuk (historic) occupation,
largely on account of early carbon 14 dates (1870 ±
180 B.P. [Beta 2142, charcoal] and 1320 ± 100 B.P.
[unknown]) obtained from the feature. According to
conventional wisdom, however, these dates are too
old for Little Passage material. Moreover, another
date obtained from an apparently secure Dorset
Paleoeskimo context at the site yielded an unlikely
recent date (805 ± 70 B.P. [unknown, charcoal]) for
this material (Evans 1982:215). In short, the dating
seems rather unreliable. Mixing may have indeed
occurred, but we are not confident that it negates
a Beothuk presence. If anything, the cache of pipe
stem pieces that the excavators identified could
suggest that the Beothuk were there. Excavators
found about 500 pipe stem pieces and a few clay
the exact location of the Russell’s Point site (CiAj-1).
Here, among the dwellings and storehouses, the
colonists spied a copper kettle, an old sail, and fishing
reel (Cell 1982:71). Archaeological excavations
at Russell’s Point have also produced iron nails,
fish-hooks, a knife, and a key (Gilbert 2002:116). At
the Stock Cove site, the probable location of Guy’s
“nine savage [houses]” (Gilbert 1990: 157, 161),
Robbins found an iron spike, clay pipe bowl, green
glass, and pipe stem pieces. Robbins claims that the
iron spike was found in association with a cornernotched
stone point, and suspected that some of
the other European-manufactured objects might be
contemporaneous with the Amerindian occupation
too (Robbins 1982:199). Our excavations at Stock
Cove in 2009 failed to produce any European objects
in association with Amerindian material, but test pits
immediately to the east of our excavations yielded
pipe stems and pipe bowl fragments, European pottery,
and nails. Likewise, test pits 150 m to the west
of our excavations led to the discovery of a new site,
Stock Cove West (CkAl-10), and the recovery of
iron nails, bottle glass, worked ballast flint, and possible
early seventeenth century ceramics (Fig. 5).
European objects were also found at the Frenchman’s
Island site. Its excavators interpret this as evidence
of a European occupation (Evans 1982:215–6),
Figure 5. Artifacts from Stock Cove West (CkAl-10): projectile points, pipe stems, bottle glass, and ceramics.
2010 Donald H. Holly, Jr., Christopher Wolff, and John Erwin 39
instead might mark the termination of their tenure
at Ferryland (R. Gaulton 2001:26–7). In addition,
one of the projectile points appears to have been
fashioned from ballast flint (R. Gaulton 2001:36–7).
Accordingly, it would appear that the Beothuk were
visiting Ferryland in the early sixteenth century, at
a time when the area was being used by seasonal
fishermen.
On the Nature of Beothuk-European
Interactions
Among the intriguing items found at Ferryland
were twenty grape seeds recovered from Feature 38,
a Beothuk hearth. Grape seeds have also been discovered
at Russell’s Point in association with a linear
hearth feature (Deal and Butt 2002:19–20). The colonists,
it should be recalled, offered the Beothuk “reasons
[raisins] of the sun to eate” (Cell 1982:74) during
their friendly encounter in the fall of 1612. This reference
could suggest that the seeds found at Russell’s
Point (CiAj-1) and Ferryland (CgAf-2) were likewise
obtained through trade with Europeans.
Guy’s colonists, and other early observers, noted
copper kettles, sails, fishing gear, iron knives, and
other European-manufactured implements at Beothuk
encampments and in their physical possession. Their
accounts also suggest that the Beothuk were familiar
with the rituals of silent trade, even if the colonists
were not. And the Beothuk made gestures, such as
waving a white skin and displaying headless arrows,
which would seem to indicate some prior experience
with Europeans (Cell 1969:68, Gilbert 1990:164).
Indeed, there are some indications that the Beothuk
were familiar with the French (Cell 1982:117, Howley
1915:25). The colonists also mention a man who
had apparently lived with the Beothuk and could
speak their language (Crout 1613).
There is, however, ample evidence that the
Beothuk also scavenged and stole items from fishermen.
As discussed earlier, archaeological evidence
from Trinity Bay and the vicinity indicate that the
Beothuk may have made forays to the coast or would
have been near the coast for much of the year. Accordingly,
it would have been easy for them to monitor
European activities and descend on their fishing
stages and camps when they set sail for home in early
autumn. Beothuk scavenging must have been a common
enough occurrence, for caretakers were sometimes
stationed to guard against raids (Pope 1993).
Yet, early on, the Beothuk do not appear to have
been deterred much by the presence of fishermen
or their caretakers, for they scavenged from fishing
stages, camps, and carried out raids when fishermen
were present as well. As mentioned above, English
fishermen in 1594 noted a native encampment in the
vicinity of two shipwrecks. Quite likely the camp
pipe bowls at Frenchman’s Island. About half of the
pipe stems were associated with a cache-like feature
(Evans 1981:89). A cache of pipe stems would
seem like an odd feature for Europeans, but perhaps
not for the Beothuk. The Rooms (the Museum of
Newfoundland and Labrador), for instance, has a
Beothuk necklace, made in part, of sectioned pipe
stem pieces smothered in red ochre (Howley 1915:
plate xxxv), indicating that the Beothuk were using
pipe stems as beads (Fig. 6).
Little Passage/Beothuk material has also been
found at the site of Lord Baltimore’s seventeenthcentury
colony at Ferryland (CgAf-2), on the eastern
shore of the Avalon Peninsula. The amount of material
found at Ferryland is impressive. Nearly 100
Little Passage/Beothuk objects and a half a dozen
features have been discovered at Ferryland, with
additional material being unearthed each year (B.
Gaulton et al. 2010). Most of the artifacts and features
cluster in what has been called area B, an area
of the site that predates the colony and is associated
with a sixteenth-century European fishing presence.
Excavations in Area B have uncovered five hearths,
concentrated deposits of fire-cracked rock, lithic
tools and debris, and a possible tent ring (B. Gaulton
et al. 2010, R. Gaulton 2001, Tuck 1996:27–28).
All of the artifacts recovered so far are made from
stone. There is good evidence, however, to suggest
that the site represents a historic Beothuk occupation.
One biface, for instance, was recovered on top
of a deposit of sixteenth-century European material
(R. Gaulton 2001:22), and a pipe bowl dated to 1580
was found in association with a Beothuk hearth—although
the placement of the pipe bowl in the hearth
may not have been the work of the Beothuk but
Figure 6. Beothuk necklace (VIIIA-275). Courtesy of the
Rooms, Provincial Museum Division, NL, Canada.
40 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 3
disinterest to a lack of need. The Beothuk did not
need to trade with Europeans to obtain the iron,
sails, fishing hooks, and other gear they desired
since they could just scavenge for them. Likewise
Europeans did not need the Beothuk to obtain what
they were interested in, which was primarily fish;
and if they desired furs, they could simply trap
them themselves (Pastore 1987:50). As a result,
with little reason for the two groups to interact with
one another, a sustained trading relationship never
developed (Pastore 1987). In contrast, Ingeborg
Marshall has advocated that Beothuk traditions and
cultural values led them to reject, or at least, avoid
trading with Europeans. In this way, she agrees with
Pastore with regard to a general pattern of Beothuk
avoidance, but disputes the reason. Marshall asserts
that Europeans were initially interested in trading,
but that the Beothuk were not because of their “…
strong adherence to traditional values and behavior
… [and] … an early rejection of Europeans and
their culture” (1996:74). Thus, it was more that the
Beothuk did not want European items than they did
not need them.
If Pastore attributes Beothuk avoidance to economics
and Ingeborg to ideology, others have emphasized
the complex, nuanced nature of Beothuk-
European relations that played out locally. Gilbert
(1990, 1992), for instance, suggests that trade
was perhaps more frequent and relations between
the Beothuk and Europeans more amicable—at
least initially—than often acknowledged. McLean
(1990), likewise, has suggested that Europeans may
have traded some heat-modified iron implements
and beads to the Beothuk in exchange for furs. Our
analysis of the archaeological and historic record
of southeastern Newfoundland supports this more
complex assessment, especially as it pertains to the
early encounter experience. Yet, to be fair, both Pastore
and Marshall aim to explain a larger trend in
Beothuk-European relations (Holly 2000:84). They
are correct to assert that the sweep of European-
Beothuk relations might best be summarized as
one of avoidance. In addition, a general absence of
relations—or the presence of contentious ones—
certainly characterized later Beothuk-European history
and contributed to the Beothuk’s demise. Yet, a
generalized and pervasive pattern of avoidance does
not accurately represent the state of relations in the
first century or so following contact. The nature of
these relations might best be described as complex,
situational, and variable, the implications of which
will be discussed shortly.
Malinowski (1961) and Mauss (1990) taught us
that economics are fundamentally a social endeavor.
In “traditional” societies especially, material goods
might be a vehicle for establishing social relationships,
a means of asserting status, and a political
was established there for the sole purpose of scavenging
the wrecks. Later in the voyage, the same
crew was forced to leave their fishing grounds “…
for feare of a shrewder turne of the Savages …” after
the Beothuk had cut some of their small boats away
in the night (Quinn 1979:65). Writing in 1639, Sir
David Kirke also notes that English fishermen who
frequented Trinity Bay and further north [Bonavista
Bay] found the Beothuk to be “bad neighbors”. He
also describes how the Beothuk caused problems and
“mischief” with the French, with whom they sometimes
traded (Gilbert 2002:122, Howley 1915:23).
Another observer, Richard Whitbourne, indicated
that fishermen avoided Bonavista Bay, in part, because
of the Beothuk presence there. In addition, he
notes that the Beothuk “… come into Trinity Bay
and Harbour, in the night time, purposely to steale
Sailes, Lines, Hatchets, Hookes, Kniues, and such
like” (Cell 1982:118). Whitbourne also discusses an
incident in which a ship at anchor in Trinity Bay was
raided by the Beothuk under the cover of darkness
(Cell 1982:193). Whitbourne’s accounting of such
problems are all the more impressive when one takes
into account that he was writing to encourage settlement
on the island—even going so far as to describe
the land as “no less fertill than the English soyle”
(Cell 1982:120), and the mosquitoes as only a bother
to “loitering and idle people” (Cell 1982:192–3).
The archaeological record is mute on the manner
of the Beothuk’s acquisition of European implements,
but it is easy to imagine that it represents a
wide variety of methods. Thus, the Beothuk campsite
at Ferryland may have been a place where the
Beothuk gathered to scavenge fishing gear and to
devour raisins traded to them (R. Gaulton 2001:50–
51). Likewise, while the iron nails and fish hooks
recovered at Russell’s Point were likely scavenged
by the Beothuk, the iron knife, key, and grapes [raisins?]
also found in the course of excavations may
have been given to them—perhaps in exchange for
beaver furs (Gilbert 2002:116,125–126). Accordingly,
the archaeological record seems to mirror the
impression gleaned from historic documents—that
early encounters between the Beothuk and Europeans
took myriad forms, and that they are best understood
as a collection of unique and varied events.
Conclusion: Explaining Early Interactions and
Encounters in Southeastern Newfoundland
The nature of economic relations between the
Beothuk and Europeans has long been debated by
scholars (see Holly 2000). Ralph Pastore argues
that a reading of the historical record suggests
a pattern of mutual avoidance—that neither the
Beothuk nor Europeans seemed very interested in
trading with one another. Pastore attributes this
2010 Donald H. Holly, Jr., Christopher Wolff, and John Erwin 41
of avoidance, but we suggest that this probably developed,
or at least “hardened,” later as a consequence of
deteriorating relations (Holly 2000:86–89) and that it
was not a deep-seated “traditional” Beothuk policy at
the dawn of the encounter experience.
We suggest that the failure of the Beothuk and
Europeans to develop a trading relationship had less
to do with needs and beliefs than it had to do with the
nature of the encounter experience in the early contact
period. As discussed earlier, the archaeological
and historic record of early contact catalogs a wide
assortment of experiences. Sites contain artifacts
that were likely traded and scavenged. Documents
recount hostile and friendly encounters. They also
convey a sense of unfamiliarity—as would be expected
among strangers (Holly 2000:87). It was an
era that was characterized by piracy, international
conflict, and economic competition, and populated
by actors who had wildly divergent encounter experiences—
if they had any. Consequently, while it is
difficult to generalize about the nature of European-
Beothuk relations in the early contact period, one
can probably say that the situation was complex, and
that each encounter experience would be a unique
and unpredictable event.
This pervasive unpredictably is perhaps best illustrated
by an early seventeenth century account of
a tragic encounter between the Beothuk and Europeans
in Trinity Bay. According to Sir David Kirke,
in about the year 1620, a Captain Whittington met
with the Beothuk in Trinity Bay and successfully
traded with them. He then arranged to meet them
there again the following year, but his visit was
preceded by a fisherman who fired on Beothuk who
had gathered on the shore. According to Kirke, the
Beothuk likely thought that the fisherman was Captain
Whittington, and being so angered by this betrayal
they “retyred … into the woode, and from that
daye to this have sought all occasion every fishing
season to do all the mischief they can amongst the
fishermen” (Kirke [1640] 1908:142). There is some
question as to whether this account refers to Guy’s
earlier meeting with the Beothuk, in which a Master
Whittington met the Beothuk on the shore (Marshall
1996:463–464), or if it recounts a different later
encounter with the Beothuk (Gilbert 1992). If the
latter, it is unlikely that this violent misunderstanding
was the pivotal event that changed the course of
Beothuk-European relations, as implied by Horwood
(1959:36) and Upton (1977:137–138). It is doubtful
that a single tragic event could motivate Beothuk all
over the island to take up arms against Europeans,
and in doing so, alter the course of Newfoundland
history. But it is quite probable that similar experiences
had exactly this affect. Accordingly, Kirke’s
account could very well characterize the entire early
Beothuk-European encounter experience. It was an
tool, but rarely are they just about the goods themselves.
As a case in point, people will go to great
lengths to obtain materials for trade or ceremonial
purposes that are not fundamentally different in kind
or quality from other material. Thus, Australian
Aborigines ventured far from waterholes and across
great distances to obtain “sacred stones” for ceremonies
and trade, even when better quality material or
iron was available locally (Gould 1978, Gould and
Saggers 1985, Thompson 1949:86); British Neolithic
axes were quarried from treacherous locations
when more accessible outcrops were of better quality
(Watson 1995); and the Trobriand Islanders made
difficult journeys to distant islands to obtain items
they could have just as easily fashioned at home
(Sillitoe 1998:79). Accordingly, objects are often
more important for what they mean, and for the role
they play in social relations, than for what they are
and what they do. This manner of valuing objects is
Stone Age economics (Sahlins 1972).
In the early contact period, Native Americans
broke European objects into nonfunctional pieces,
wore them as ornaments, and otherwise manipulated
them in ways to diminish their original utilitarian
value. They also sought glass beads and other trinkets
long after they had begun to employ trade items
for utilitarian purposes (Miller and Hamell 1986,
Trigger and Swagerty 1996, White 1991:99). Trade
was also about social relationships and local politics,
not just things. Native peoples and fur traders, for
instance, formed alliances with each other to defeat
their enemies and competitors, they sought relations
that might lead to religious conversions or items that
could help bolster one’s social standing, and they extended
kinship ties, cohabited, or intermarried with
each other to facilitate this (Penney 2007, Reedy-
Maschner and Maschner 1999, Sleeper-Smith 2001,
Van Kirk 1976, B. White 1984, R. White 1991). In
this context, the social role of trade goods often transcended
their mere utilitarian function. Traders that
forgot this risked their livelihood and their lives (R.
White 1991:114, 119).
Accordingly, it would appear that people desire
to trade when it is not necessary and they trade for
things that are not needed. The failure of the Beothuk
and Europeans to engage in trade, thus, cannot be due
simply to the fact that they did not need to, as in the
sense advocated by Pastore. “Need” cannot explain
why the Trobriand Islanders trade for similar objects
or why the United States and Cuba fail to trade when
there is an obvious “need” for Cuban cigars and Coca
Cola. Likewise, it is difficult to imagine an ideology
of avoidance developing in a vacuum, as Marshall
suggests. It is reasonable to assume that people would
first consider interacting and trading with others
before rejecting them. There might very well be a
cultural and ideological basis to the Beothuk pattern
42 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 3
Literature Cited
Barkham, S. 1980. A note on the Strait of Belle Isle during
the period of Basque contact with Indians and Inuit.
Études/Inuit/Studies 4(1–2):51–58.
Bell, T., and M.A.P. Renouf. 2008. The domino effect:
Culture change and environmental change in Newfoundland,
1500–100 cal BP. The Northern Review
28(winter):72–94.
Bergerud, A.T., M.J. Nolan, K. Curnew, and W.E. Mercer.
1983. Growth of the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
Caribou herd. The Journal of Wildlife Management
47(4):989–998.
Cell, G.T. 1969. English Enterprise in Newfoundland:
1577–1660. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON,
Canada. 181 pp.
Cell, G.T. (Ed.). 1982. Newfoundland Discovered: English
Attempts at Colonisation, 1610–1630. The Hakluyt
Society, London, UK. 310 pp.
Chapman, A. 1980. Barter as a universal mode of exchange.
L’Homme 20(3):33–83.
Cridland, J. 1998. Late Prehistoric Indian subsistence in
Northeastern Newfoundland: Faunal analysis of Little
Passage Complex assemblages from the beaches and
Inspector Island sites. M.A. Thesis. Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada.
280 pp.
Crout, Henry. 1613. Letter to P. Willoughby. MG 260/24,
Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador,
St. John’s NL, Canada.
Deal, M., and A. Butt. 2002. The great want: Current
research in Beothuk palaeoethnobotany. Pp. 15–27, In
S.L.R. Mason and J.G. Hather (Eds.). Hunter-Gatherer
Archaeobotany: Perspectives from the northern temperate
zone. Institute of Archaeology, University College
London, London, UK. 196 pp.
Erwin, J.C., D.H. Holly, Jr., S.H. Hull., and T.L. Rast.
2005. Form and function of projectile points and the
trajectory of Newfoundland prehistory. Canadian
Journal of Archaeology 29(1):46–67.
Evans, C.O. 1981. Field report of Frenchmen’s Island
Project. Pp. 88–94, In J.S. Thomson and B. Ransom
(Eds.). Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador
1980. Historic Resources Division, Department of
Culture, Recreation and Youth, Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador, St. John’s, NL, Canada. 110
pp.
Evans, C.O. 1982. Frenchmen’s Island Site (ClAl-1): 1981
preliminary field report. Pp. 210–225, In J.S. Thomson
and C. Thomson (Eds.). Archaeology in Newfoundland
and Labrador 1981. Historic Resources Division,
Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth, Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s,
NL, Canada. 237 pp.
Gaulton, B., J.A. Tuck, and A.F. Miller. 2010. Archaeology
at Ferryland 2009. Provincial Archaeology Office
2009 Archaeology Review 8:62–66.
Gaulton, R. 2001. An early historic Beothuk occupation
at Ferryland, Newfoundland. Avalon Chronicles
6:19–55.
Gilbert, W. 1990. “Divers Places”: The Beothuk Indians
and John Guy’s voyage into Trinity Bay in 1612. Newfoundland
Studies 6(2):147–167.
Gilbert, W. 1992. “…great good Done”: Beothuk-Europeera
of unpredictability; and this unpredictability,
presumably undermined efforts to establish and sustain
relations.
Many have considered the nature of Beothuk-
European relations, and each, we believe, makes
a significant contribution. William Gilbert (1990,
1992), for instance, has stressed the sometimes
amicable state of relations between the Beothuk and
Europeans. His work draws attention to the on-theground
complexity of Beothuk-European encounters,
and serves as a corrective to those that tended
to see Beothuk-European relations as characterized
by avoidance from the outset. There are, however,
accounts of avoidance, mischief, and kidnappings in
the early accounts. And even the Beothuk that Guy
encountered seem to have been extremely timid and
fearful at first (Cell 1982:70, 73). Tellingly, they
also seemed to prefer to engage with the colonists
through silent trade (see Gilbert 1992:6, Howley
1915:50–51), a manner of exchange that is often
found under conditions where direct trade would be
dangerous (Chapman 1980:38, Price 1980:80–81).
Given these conditions, and the fact that the Beothuk
did not have to incur risks to obtain what they wanted
(i.e., Pastore 1987:48), it is hardly surprisingly that
a sustained trading relationship never developed.
Certainly the beliefs that Marshall (1996) claims
spurred the Beothuk to reject Europeans and their
goods were forged in this context. Thus, Beothuk beliefs
did not contribute to the failure of the Beothuk
and Europeans to establish ties so much as they were
affected by it. Nonetheless, ideological factors likely
played an increasingly important role in the later
history of the Beothuk (Holly 2000). In short, the
course of Beothuk-European history is perhaps best
understood as neither a matter of economics nor a
clash of cultures, but rather of a failure to establish
social ties.
Acknowledgments
Research at Stock Cove in 2008 and 2009 was generously
supported by a grant from the Provincial Archaeology
Office, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We would like to thank Robert Snook, Meghan Negrijn,
Lindsay Swinarton, Eric Tourigny, Warrick Seaward,
Elaine Anton, Amanda Crompton, Steve Mills, and the
staff at the Provincial Archaeology Office for their assistance
with the project. We would also like to thank Steve
Hull for proofing this paper, and two anonymous reviewers
for their thoughtful comments and constructive criticism.
An earlier version of this paper was presented in the
symposium “Theoretical and Methodological Approaches
to the Study of Interactions in Eastern North America”
at the Society for American Archaeology meetings in St.
Louis. We would like to thank Karine Taché for inviting
us to participate, and Adrian Burke and Elizabeth Chilton
for their comments.
2010 Donald H. Holly, Jr., Christopher Wolff, and John Erwin 43
an Relations in Trinity Bay, 1612–1622. Newfoundland
Quarterly 3:2–10.
Gilbert, W. 2002. Russell’s Point (CiAj-1): A Little Passage/
Beothuk site at the bottom of Trinity Bay. M.A.
Thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
John’s, NL, Canada. 181 pp.
Gilbert, W. 2006. A Report on the Archaeological Excavations
conducted at the Recent Indian Site on Dildo
Island during 2004. Report on file at the Provincial
Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, St. John’s, NL, Canada.
Gilbert, W. 2007. Guy not Gosnold: A correction. Post-
Medieval Archaeology 41(2):264–269.
Gould, R.A. 1978. The Anthropology of human residues.
American Anthropologist 80(4):815–835.
Gould, R.A., and S. Saggers. 1985. Lithic procurement
in central Australia: A closer look at Binford’s idea of
embeddedness in Archaeology. American Antiquity
50(1):117–136.
Hartery, L. 2007. The Cow Head Complex and the Recent
Indian Period in Newfoundland, Labrador, and the
Quebec Lower North Shore. Occasional Papers in
Northeastern Archaeology 17. Copetown Press, St.
John’s, NL, Canada. 66 pp.
Holly, D.H., Jr. 2000. The Beothuk on the eve of their
extinction. Arctic Anthropology 37(1):79–95.
Holly, D.H., Jr. 2002. From space to place: An archaeology
and historical geography of the Recent Indian
Period in Newfoundland. Ph.D. Dissertation. Brown
University, Providence, RI, USA. 254 pp.
Holly, D.H., Jr. 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(2):170–190.
Holly, D.H., Jr. In press. When foragers fail: In the Eastern
Subarctic, for example. In K. Sassaman and D.H.
Holly, Jr. (Eds.). Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as Historical
Process. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
AZ. USA.
Horwood, H. 1959. The people who were murdered for
fun. Maclean’s Magazine October 10th:27, 36–43.
Howley, J.P. 1915. The Beothucks or Red Indians: The
Aboriginal Inhabitants of Newfoundland. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 348 pp.
Hull, S. 2002. Tanite uet tshinauetamin? A trail to Labrador:
Recent Indians and the North Cove site. M.A.
Thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
John’s, NL, Canada. 219 pp.
Jukes, J.B. 1842. Excursions In and About Newfoundland
During the Years 1839 and 1840, Vol. 2. John Murray,
London, UK. 354 pp.
Kirke, H. 1908 [1640]. The First English Conquest of
Canada with some Account of the Earliest Seetlements
in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Sampson Low,
Marston and Co, London, UK. 224 pp.
Malinowski, B. 1961 [1922]. Argonauts of the Western
Pacific. Dutton, New York, NY, USA. 527 pp.
Marshall, I. 1996. A History and Ethnography of the
Beothuk. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal,
PQ, Canada. 640 pp.
Martijn, C.A. 1990. Innu (Montagnais) in Newfoundland.
Pp. 227–246, In W. Cowan (Ed.). Papers of the 21st
Algonquian Conference. Carleton University, Ottawa,
ON, Canada. 395 pp.
Martijn, C.A. 2009. Historic Inuit presence in northern
Newfoundland, circa 1550–1800 CE. Pp. 65–101, In
D. Keenlyside and J-L. Pilon (Eds.). Painting the Past
with a Broad Brush: Papers in Honour of James Valliere
Wright. Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 170.
Gatineau, PQ, Canada. 741 pp.
Martijn, C.A., and L-J Dorais. 2001. Eighteenth-Century
Innu (Montagnais) and Inuit toponyms in the Northern
Peninsula of Newfoundland. Newfoundland Studies
17(2):319–330.
Mauss, M. 1990 [1925]. The Gift. W.W. Norton, New
York, NY, USA. 164 pp.
McLean, L.A. 1990. Beothuk iron—Evidence for European
trade? Newfoundland Studies 6(2):168–176.
Mercer, E., S. Mahoney, K. Curnew, and C. Finlay. 1985.
Distribution and abundance of insular Newfoundland
caribou and the effects of human activities. Pp. 15–32,
In T.C. Meredith and A.M. Martell (Eds.). Proceedings
of the Second North American Caribou Workshop.
McGill Subarctic Research Paper, 40. Centre for
Northern Studies and Research, McGill University,
Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada. 327 pp.
Merian, M. 1628. Dreyzehender Theil Americae, C. Rötel,
Frankfurt, Germany. 38 pp.
Miller, C.L., and G.R. Hamell. 1986. A new perspective
on Indian-White contact: Cultural symbols and
colonial trade. The Journal of American History
73(2):311–328.
Mills, S., and B. Gaulton. 2010. Sunnyside-1 (ClAl-05):
A possible 17th-century winter house at the bottom of
Bull Arm, Trinity Bay. Provincial Archaeology Office
2009 Archaeology Review 8:92–94.
Nomokonova, T. 2010. Preliminary analyses of faunal material
recovered from Stock Cove, CkAl-3, Newfoundland.
Unpublished report in author’s possession.
Pastore, R. 1987. Fishermen, furriers, and Beothuks:
The economy of extinction. Man in the Northeast 33
(spring):47–62.
Pastore, R. 2000. Recent Indian peoples and the Norse.
Pp. 43–47, In K. McAleese (Ed.). Full Circle: First
Contact. Newfoundland Museum, St. John’s, NL,
Canada. 64 pp.
Penney, D.W. 2007. Captains’ coats. Pp.85–91, In J.C.H
King and C.F. Feest (Eds.). Three Centuries of Woodlands
Indian Art. ZKF Publishers, Altenstadt, Germany.
200 pp.
Penney, G. 1981. A preliminary report on the excavation
of L’Anse á Flamme Site (CjAx-1). Pp. 95–110, In
J.S. Thomson and B. Ransom (Eds.). Archaeology in
Newfoundland and Labrador 1980. Historic Resources
Division, Department of Culture, Recreation and
Youth, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
St. John’s, NL, Canada. 110 pp.
Penney, G. 1984. The prehistory of the southwest coast of
Newfoundland. M.A. Thesis. Memorial University of
Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada. 250 pp.
Penney, G. 1990. Archaeological Survey of Temagen
Gospen. Report on file at the Provincial Archaeology
Office, Department of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation,
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St.
John’s, NL, Canada.
Pope, P. 1993. Scavengers and caretakers: Beothuk/European
settlement dynamics in seventeenth-century
Newfoundland. Newfoundland Studies 9(2):279–293.
44 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 3
Pope, P. 2004. Fish into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation
in the Seventeenth Century. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 463 pp.
Pope, P. 2009. Early migratory fishermen and Newfoundland’s
seabird colonies. Journal of the North Atlantic
2(Special Volume 1):57–74.
Price, J.A. 1980. On silent trade. Pp. 75–96, In G. Dalton
(Ed.). Research in Economic Anthropology, Vol. 3.
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, USA. 383 pp.
Quinn, D.B. 1979. The voyage of the Grace of Bristol. Pp.
64–65, In D. Quinn (Ed.). New American World. Arno
Press, New York, NY, USA. 454 pp.
Reedy-Maschner, K.L., and H.D.G. Maschner. 1999. Marauding
middlemen: Western expansion and violent
conflict in the subarctic. Ethnohistory 46(4):703–743.
Renouf, M.A.P. 1999. Prehistory of Newfoundland
hunter-gatherers: Extinctions or adaptations? World
Archaeology 30(3):403–420.
Renouf, M.A.P. 2003. Hunter-Gatherer interactions:
Mutualism and resource partitioning on the Island of
Newfoundland. Before Farming 1(4):1–16.
Renouf, M.A.P., and Trevor Bell. 2009. Contraction and
expansion in Newfoundland prehistory, A.D. 900–
1500. Pp. 263–278, In H. Maschner, O. Mason, and R.
McGhee (Eds.). The Northern World A.D. 900–1400.
The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT,
USA. 349 pp.
Robbins, D. 1982. Preliminary report on the Stock Cove
Site (CkAl-3). Pp. 190–209, In J.S. Thomson and C.
Thomson (Eds.). Archaeology in Newfoundland and
Labrador 1981. Historic Resources Division, Department
of Culture, Recreation and Youth, Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s, NL,
Canada. 237 pp.
Robbins, D. 1985. Stock Cove, Trinity Bay: The Dorset
Eskimo occupation of Newfoundland. M.A. Thesis.
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s,
NL, Canada. 190 pp.
Robbins, D. 1989. Regards archéologiques sur les
Béothuks de Terre-Neuve. Recherches amérindiennes
au Québec 19(2–3):21–32.
Rowley-Conwy, P. 1990. Settlement patterns of the
Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland: A view from away.
Canadian Journal of Archaeology 14:13–32.
Sahlins, M.D. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton,
Chicago, IL, USA. 348 pp.
Schwarz, F. 1994. Paleo-Eskimo and Recent Indian
subsistence and settlement patterns on the Island
of Newfoundland. Northeast Anthropology
47(Spring):55–70.
Sillitoe, P. 1998. An Intoduction to the Anthropology of
Melanasia: Culture and Tradition. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. 254 pp.
Sleeper-Smith, S. 2001. Indian Women and French Men:
Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great
Lakes. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst,
MA, USA. 234 pp.
Teal, M.A. 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. M.A. Thesis. Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada. 155 pp.
Thomson, C. 1990. Report of a terrestrial archaeological
survey and an underwater reconnaissance of Great
Mosquito Cove, Bull Arm, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland.
Report on file at the Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation,
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St.
John’s, NL, Canada.
Thomson, D.F. 1949. Economic Structure and the Ceremonial
Exchange Cycle in Arnhem Land. Macmillian,
Melbourne, Australia. 106 pp.
Trigger, B.G., and W.R. Swagerty. 1996. Entertaining
strangers: North America in the sixteenth century. Pp.
325–398, In B.G. Trigger and W.E. Washburn (Eds.).
The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the
Americas, Volume 1, Part 1. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. 538 pp.
Tuck, J.A. 1996. Archaeology at Ferryland, Newfoundland
1936–1995. Avalon Chronicles 1:21–41.
Tuck, J.A., and R.T. Pastore. 1985. A nice place to visit …
but: Prehistoric extinctions on the island of Newfoundland.
Canadian Journal of Archaeology 9(1):69–80.
Turgeon, L. 1990. Basque-Amerindian trade in the
Saint Lawrence during the sixteenth century: New
documents, new perspectives. Man in the Northeast
40(fall):81–87.
Turgeon, L. 1998. French fishers, fur traders, and Amerindians
during the sixteenth century: History and archaeology.
William and Mary Quarterly 55(4):585–610.
Upton, L.F.S. 1977. The extermination of the Beothucks
of Newfoundland. The Canadian Historical Review
58(2):133–153.
Van Kirk, Sylvia. 1976. “The custom of the country”:
An examination of fur trade marriage practices. Pp.
47–80, In L.H. Thomas (Ed.). Essays on Western
History. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, AB,
Canada. 217 pp.
Watson, A. 1995. Investigating the distribution of group
VI debitage in the central lake district. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 61:461–462.
White, B. 1984. “Give us a little milk”: The social and cultural
significance of gift giving in the Lake Superior
fur trade. Pp. 185–197, In T.C. Buckley (Ed.). Rendezvous:
Selected Papers of the Fourth North American
Fur Trade Conference, 1981. Minnesota Historical
Society, St. Paul, MN, USA. 231 pp.
White, R. 1991. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires,
and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–
1815. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
554 pp.
Wolff, C. B., M. Negrijn, L. Swinarton, and E. Tourigny.
2009. New research at Stock Cove, Trinity Bay,
Newfoundland. Provincial Archaeology Office 2008
Archaeology Review 7:156–160.
Wolff, C.B., J. Erwin, and D.H. Holly, Jr. 2010. Settlement
and subsistence in southeastern Newfoundland: Stock
Cove revisited. Provincial Archaeology Office 2009
Archaeology Review 8:172–175.