CENTRE FOR NEWFOUNDLAND STUDIES 
TOTAL OF tO PAGES ONLY 
MA V BE XEROXED 



St. John's 
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR 5 (HeCi-30) 
AND AN EXAMINATION OF 
GROSWATER AND EARLY DORSET RELATIONSHIPS 
IN LABRADOR 
by 
©Elaine P. Anton 
A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies 
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 
Department of Anthropology 
Memorial University ofNewfoundland 
January, 2004 
Newfoundland and Labrador 
1+1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliotheque et Archives Canada 
Published Heritage 
Branch 
Direction du 
Patrimoine de !'edition 
395 Wellington Street 
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 
Canada 
395, rue Wellington 
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 
Canada 
NOTICE: 
The author has granted a non-
exclusive license allowing Library 
and Archives Canada to reproduce, 
publish, archive, preserve, conserve, 
communicate to the public by 
telecommunication or on the Internet, 
loan, distribute and sell theses 
worldwide, for commercial or non-
commercial purposes, in microform, 
paper, electronic and/or any other 
formats. 
The author retains copyright 
ownership and moral rights in 
this thesis. Neither the thesis 
nor substantial extracts from it 
may be printed or otherwise 
reproduced without the author's 
permission. 
In compliance with the Canadian 
Privacy Act some supporting 
forms may have been removed 
from this thesis. 
While these forms may be included 
in the document page count, 
their removal does not represent 
any loss of content from the 
thesis. 
. ......
Canada 
AVIS: 
Your file Votre reference 
ISBN: 0-612-99048-6 
Our file Notre reference 
ISBN: 0-612-99048-6 
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive 
permettant a Ia Bibliotheque et Archives 
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, 
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public 
par telecommunication ou par I' Internet, preter, 
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans 
le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, 
sur support microforme, papier, electronique 
et/ou autres formats. 
L'auteur conserve Ia propriete du droit d'auteur 
et des droits meraux qui protege cette these. 
Ni Ia these ni des extraits substantiels de 
celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement 
reproduits sans son autorisation. 
Conformement a Ia loi canadienne 
sur Ia protection de Ia vie privee, 
quelques formulaires secondaires 
ont ete enleves de cette these. 
Bien que ces formulaires 
aient inclus dans Ia pagination, 
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. 
ABSTRACT 
In 1981 archaeologist William Fitzhugh reported that excavations of St. John's 
Harbour 5 (HeCi-30), located in the islands east ofNain, Labrador, had recovered 
"important data from a house apparently occupied by a late Groswater Dorset group 
undergoing influence from Early Dorset culture" (Fitzhugh 1981 :36). Fitzhugh based this 
interpretation on artifact style and raw material use he considered atypical for Groswater. 
In order to assess whether this site is indicative of influence from Early Dorset culture, 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorest sites are reviewed to determine if interaction 
(resulting in influence) occurred between these groups in Labrador overall. To evaluate if 
interaction took place the site locations, dates, artifacts, raw material use, house styles 
and subsistence and settlement patterns for all Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset sites 
in Labrador are reviewed. From this analysis, it is concluded that Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset co-existed during overlapping time periods in the same geographic 
regions, but utilized unique tool kits and raw materials suggesting little direct interaction 
(including at the St. John's Harbour Site itself). At the same time, the pattern of site 
placement for these two groups indicates a partitioning of areas, evidenced especially in 
the Nain region, resulting in Groswater largely utilizing inner islands and Labrador Early 
Dorset utilizing the outer islands. This suggests passive interaction, that is, a decision to 
avoid each other through a division of land use and resources within geographic regions 
during the same time period. 
11 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
As with all works such as this there are many people who help to encourage and 
facilitate it along the way and to whom many thanks must be extended. First to Dr. 
William Fitzhugh who allowed me to take on his research at St. John's Harbour 5 as my 
own for this thesis and provided all notes and photographs for me to use. Also to my 
supervisor at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dr. Priscilla Renouf, for her 
patience while I did this on a part-time basis, and for her guidance and feedback on the 
project in general. Dr. Stuart Brown should also be thanked for supervising me during 
my year of course work and thesis proposal while Dr. Renoufwas on sabbatical. As well, 
Dr. James Tuck provided feedback on the Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
collections that helped clarify my understanding of these cultures. 
In the summer of 1998 I went to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. 
to access the collections and :fieldnotes currently located there. Dr. Fitzhugh kindly 
allowed me full access to all of his notes, and spent time going over the various 
collections with me. Carla Lovett was also instrumental in assisting me in locating items, 
and in packing up collections to bring back with me to Newfoundland. Thanks are also 
extended to all for making my social time there memorable. Finally Dr. Stephen Loring 
and Dr. Joan Gero generously allowed me to stay at their home during my time in 
Washington. 
Thanks also to Dr. Fitzhugh and Dr. Loring, along with Dr. Susan Kaplan, for 
providing images and insights on the St. John's Harbour 5 site itself. As Drs. Loring and 
Kaplan originally excavated at the site, these discussions and photos were particularly 
111 
useful in understanding the site more fully. 
Funding support was provided in 1997 by the Department of Anthropology, 
Memorial Unversity ofNewfoundland, and as an employee of the Provincial Government 
ofNewfoundland and Labrador, The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation 
supported the costs of one semester of study. 
Fellow graduate students always add to the Masters experience by sharing insights 
during the course work and encouragement during the writing process. Thanks goes to 
my fellow classmates, Dawn Laybolt and Tanya Von Hunnius. Special thanks go to 
classmate Stephen Hull, who shared in the experience with me of doing a thesis part-time 
and was always willing to help out with ''the dead seagull" and make me laugh with the 
mere mention of"my spicy little nacho". Further support was also given by Tim Rast 
who helped me understand lithics so much more, Dr. John Erwin for graphics, and 
clarifying the whole radiocarbon thing and Dr. Marianne Stopp for help on thinking the 
original project through. 
Thanks for general encouragement and social times goes to the many others who 
have passed through the program during the same time or have helped in some other way. 
My fellow co-workers in archaeology with the Department of Tourism, Culture and 
Recreation and at the Provincial Museum of Newfoundland and Labrador, are also to be 
thanked for their encouragement and resource knowledge. 
Finally I wish to thank John Erwin, and my mother, Patricia Anton, for 
encouraging me to do this in the first place, and for always supporting further education. 
IV 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Abstract.......................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ 111 
Table of Contents........................................................................................................... v 
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. v1u 
List of Figures................................................................................................................ x 
Chapter 1 
Chapter 2 
Introduction and Cultural Prehistory Background.................................. 1 
1.1 Introduction................................................................................ 1 
1.2 Arctic Paleoeskimo Prehistory................................................... 3 
1.3 Newfoundland and Labrador Palaeoeskimo Prehistory............. 7 
1.3.1 Independence I and Pre Dorset in Labrador...................... 8 
1.3.2 Groswater in Labrador and Newfoundland....................... 10 
1.3.3 Dorset in Labrador and Newfoundland............................. 12 
1.3.3.1 Early Dorset in Labrador.................................... 13 
1.3.3.2 Middle Dorset in Labrador and Newfoundland.. 15 
1.3.3.3 Late Dorset in Labrador...................................... 16 
1.4 Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset Relationship................... 17 
1.5 Summary of Arctic Paleoeskimo Prehistory.............................. 20 
Cultural Interactions and Their Archaeological Signatures................... 22 
2.1 Introduction................................................................................ 22 
2.2 How Interaction Occurs.............................................................. 23 
2.3 The Results of Interaction and Archaeological Indicators......... 27 
2.4 Challenges in Identifying Interaction Archaeologically............. 30 
2.5 Archaeological Evidence of Interaction..................................... 36 
2.6 Identifying Interaction between Groswater and Labrador Early 
Dorset......................................................................................... 39 
2.7 Chapter Summary....................................................................... 42 
v 
Chapter 3 
Chapter4 
Determining the Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset Relationship 
in Labrador............................................................................................. 44 
3.1 The Sample................................................................................. 44 
3.2 Establishing Place and Time...................................................... 45 
3 .2.1 Site Locations.................................................................... 46 
3.2.2 Dates.................................................................................. 49 
3.3 The Artifacts............................................................................... 54 
3.3.1 Functional Comparison..................................................... 55 
3.3.2 Stylistic Comparison......................................................... 61 
3.3.3 Lithic Material Use............................................................ 74 
3.4 House Styles............................................................................... 78 
3.5 Anomalies................................................................................... 79 
3.6 Chapter Summary....................................................................... 83 
Conclusions............................................................................................ 85 
References...................................................................................................................... 91 
Appendix 1 St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 Site Report ............................................ 100 
A1.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 100 
A1.2 Site Location ............................................................................ 100 
A1.3 Site Description .......................................................................... 100 
A1.4 Dates ........................................................................................... 103 
A1.5 Artifact Descriptions .................................................................. 103 
A1.5.1 Endblades ....................................................................... 103 
A1.5.2 Knives ............................................................................ 108 
A1.5.3 Bifaces ............................................................................ 111 
Al.5.4 Biface Preforms.............................................................. 115 
Al.5.5 Sideblades ....................................................................... 115 
A1.5.6 Scrapers .......................................................................... 117 
Al.5.7 Burin-like Tools............................................................. 120 
Vl 
A1.5.8 Burin Spalls .................................................................... 120 
A1.5.9 Celts ................................................................................ 120 
A1.5.10 Microblades .................................................................. 125 
Al.5.11 Utilized Flakes .............................................................. 129 
A1.5.12 Ground Flakes .............................................................. 130 
A1.5.13 Cores ............................................................................. 130 
Al.5.14 Unidentified Worked Pieces ......................................... 130 
A1.5.15 Flakes ............................................................................ 130 
A1.5.16 Shatter ........................................................................... 132 
A 1.5 .17 Artifact Summary......................................................... 132 
A1.6 Distribution of Artifacts Within the Site and in Relation to 
Features...................................................................................... 132 
Al.7 Discussion of St. John's Harbour 5 ............................................ 141 
Appendix 2 Missing Artifacts for St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ............................. 143 
Appendix 3 Groswater sites in Labrador, Pre 2001.. ................................................. 144 
Appendix 4 Labrador Early Dorset sites in Labrador, Pre 2001 ................................ 158 
Appendix 5 Dates Compared to a Fixed Age as a Test for Contemporaneity........... 167 
Vll 
LIST OF TABLES 
1.1 Comparison ofGroswater, Early, Middle and Late Dorset Traits in Labrador.. 18 
2.1 Expected archaeological results of Direct Interaction........................................ 40 
2.2 Expected archaeological results of fudirect or Passive futeraction................. .. . 41 
2.3 Expected archaeological results ofNo Interaction............................................. 42 
3.1 Pairwise Testing ofEight Dates from Groswater (GW) and Labrador Early 
Dorset (ED) Sites................................................................................................ 53 
3.2 Tool categories represented in Groswater Sites................................................. 56 
3.3 Tool categories represented in Labrador Early Dorset Sites.............................. 57 
3.4 Comparison ofGroswater and Labrador Early Dorset Tools............................. 59 
3.5 Lithic Materials used on Five Labrador Groswater Sites................................... 75 
3.6 Lithic Materials used on Five Labrador Early Dorset Sites............................... 76 
3.7 Comparison of Lithic Raw Material Use from Five Labrador Groswater and 
Five Labrador Early Dorset sites........................................................................ 76 
4.1 Evidence for fudirect or Passive futeraction between Groswater and Labrador 
Early Dorset in Labrador .. .. . .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. 85 
ALI Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Complete Endblades .................................... 106 
Al.2 Summary ofNotching on Endlades/Points from St. John's Harbour 5 .............. 109 
Al.3 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Knives .......................................................... 112 
A1.4 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Biface Notching ........................................... 114 
Al.5 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Stemmed Bifaces ......................................... 114 
Al.6 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Scrapers ....................................................... 119 
Al.7 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Burin-like-tools Notching ............................ 121 
Al.8 St. John's Harbour 5 Microblades by Material Type......................................... 125 
Al.9 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Complete Microblades ................................ 126 
Al.IO Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Microblade Widths ...................................... 127 
Al.11 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Microblade Stems ........................................ 129 
Al.12 St. John's Harbour 5 Flakes by Type and Material.. .......................................... 131 
vm 
Al.l3 Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Shatter by Material.. .................................... 132 
A1.14 St. John's Harbour 5 Artifacts by Material Type ............................................... 133 
A1.15 St. John's Harbour 5 Artifacts by Location on Site ............................................ 135 
Al.16 St. John's Harbour 5 Flakes by Material and Location ...................................... 139 
A 1.17 St. John's Harbour 5 Flakes by Type and Location........................................... 140 
A2.1 Missing Artifacts from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ...................................... 143 
IX 
LIST OF FIGURES 
1.1 Canadian Arctic and Subarctic Map................................................................... 6 
1.2 Map of Labrador................................................................................................. 9 
3.1 Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset Sites Locations in Labrador.................. 47 
3.2 Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset Sites Near Nain, Labrador..................... 50 
3.3 Calibrated Date Ranges B.P. for Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset........... 51 
3.4 Comparison ofGroswater and Labrador Early Dorset Tools............................. 60 
3.5 Groswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from Rattler's Bight, Solomon 
Island 2 and Big Island....................................................................................... 62 
3.6 Sample ofGroswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from Postville 
Pentecostal, GfBw-4........................................................................................... 63 
3. 7 Sample of Groswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from Postville 
Pentecostal, GfBw-4........................................................................................... 64 
3.8 Sample ofGroswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from St. John's 
Harbour 5, HeCi-30.................................................................... ........................ 65 
3.9 Labrador Early Dorset Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from Dog Bight L3, 
Peabody Point 2 and Shuldham Island 14.......................................................... 67 
3.10 Labrador Early Dorset Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from Illuvektalik 1 
and 2................................................................................................................... 68 
3.11 Groswater Scrapers from Rattler's Bight, Postville Pentecostal, Big Island 
and St. John's Harbour 5.................................................................................... 69 
3.12 Labrador Early Dorset Scrapers from Dog Bight L3, Illuvektalik 1 and 2, 
Peabody Point 2 and Shuldham Island 14.......................................................... 71 
3.13 Groswater Burin-like-tools from Rattler's Bight, Postville Pentecostal and St. 
John's Harbour 5............................................................................................... 72 
3.14 Labrador Early Dorset Burin-like-tools from Dog Bight L3, Illuvektalik 1 and 
2 and Peabody Point 2......... ...... ...................... ......... .......................................... 73 
3.15 Comparison of Lithic Raw Material Use from Five Labrador Groswater and 
Five Labrador Early Dorset sites........................................................................ 77 
3.16 A Selection ofGroswater and Labrador Early Dorset Ground Nephrite and 
Slate Artifacts from Labrador............................................................................. 82 
X 
A1.1 Site Plan Showing Feature Locations and Excavated Units for St. 
John'sHarbour 5, HeCi-30 ................................................................................ 102 
Al.2 Endblades from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ................................................. 104 
Al.3 Knives from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ...................................................... 110 
A1.4 A Selection ofBifaces from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30............................. 113 
Al.5 Sideblades from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ................................................ 116 
Al.6 Scrapers from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 .................................................... 118 
Al.7 Burin-like-tools from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ........................................ 122 
Al.8 Celts from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30......................................................... 123 
Al.9 Celt Preforms from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30........................................... 124 
Al.10 A Selection ofMicrob1ades from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ..................... 128 
A 1.11 Histogram of St. John's Harbour 5 Flakes by Type and Material...................... 131 
Al.l2 Artifact Distribution by Square for St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ................... 134 
Al.13 Flake Distribution by Square for St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 ...................... 138 
Xl 
CHAPTER! 
INTRODUCTION AND CULTURAL PREIDSTORY BACKGROUND 
1.1 Introduction 
In 1981, archaeologist William Fitzhugh reported that excavations of St. John's 
Harbour 5 (HeCi-30), located in the islands east ofNain, Labrador, had recovered 
"important data from a house apparently occupied by a late Groswater Dorset group 
undergoing influence from Early Dorset culture" (Fitzhugh 1981:36). This thesis intends 
to determine whether a relationship between two Palaeoeskimo groups, Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset, can be recognized from archaeological sites in Labrador, and to 
examine the extent to which the St. John's Harbour 5 site provides such evidence. 
Fitzhugh based his initial conclusions about the St. John's Harbour 5 site on his 
assessment that the collection contained artifacts that were atypical for Groswater. He 
also noted characteristics that he interpreted as being more reminiscent of Labrador Early 
Dorset, both in style and in raw material use (Fitzhugh 1977a, 1980a, 1981 :42). 
In order to test Fithzhugh's conclusions regarding St. John's Harbour 5, and 
determine if they apply to other Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset sites in Labrador, it 
is necessary to explore how cultural influence can be recognized in the archaeological 
record. As influence is one possible result of interaction, it is the presence or absence of 
interaction between these two groups that must actually be explored. To accomplish this, 
three possible scenarios are presented and tested: a) direct interaction occurred between 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset, b) indirect or passive interaction occurred, or c) no 
interaction occurred. In order to determine which scenario is most likely for Groswater 
and Labrador Early Dorset in Labrador temporal, geographical, artifactual and 
architectural lines of evidence are combined to present a holistic picture. More 
specifically, these lines of evidence include: 
1) Site Location 
Interaction can occur when groups are in the same geographic region. In this 
thesis the locations of each cultural group are assessed to determine the extent of spatial 
overlap and therefore potential for interaction. 
2) Dates 
On the basis that there is a greater likelihood that the results of interaction are 
seen when face-to-face contact can take place, the dates for all Groswater and Labrador 
Early Dorset sites are reviewed to confirm the temporal position of each group to 
determine the likelihood of direct interaction occurring. 
3) Artifacts 
Artifacts can be used as cultural indicators to identify distinct cultural groupings. 
2 
Artifact traits such as fi.mction, style, material and overall toolkit composition are used to 
identify differences between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset and to determine if 
there is evidence of interaction between the groups. 
4) House Styles and Site Features 
Site features and house styles provide clues to how each group lived on the 
landscape. They can indicate the fi.mctions of sites, seasonality, and cultural 
characteristics of adaptation to the land. The comparison of the physical remains of the 
living areas will provide additional means to test for interaction. 
3 
5) Settlement and Subsistence patterns 
Settlement and subsistence patterns will be explored for each group to see if there 
are elements that may produce evidence for interaction. 
In chapter 2 more will be said about how these lines of evidence relate to 
interaction, but by combining these lines of evidence, it should be possible to assess the 
type of interaction occurring between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset in general, 
and then determine whether influence as an outcome of interaction is evident at the St. 
John's Harbour 5 site. 
The following section provides the cultural context for this thesis by outlining the 
Palaeoeskimo culture history in the Arctic in general, and within Labrador itself. Chapter 
2 explores how interaction is recognized in the archaeological record and will expand the 
three scenarios to be tested to explore the relationship between Groswater and Labrador 
Early Dorset. Chapter 3 presents the evidence that will be used to test the scenarios from 
the Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset archaeological record in Labrador, including St. 
John's Harbour 5, and previously published and unpublished information. Chapter 4 
provides a discussion of the findings in Chapter 3, makes conclusions regarding which 
interaction scenario best fits the available evidence, and provides comments on the St. 
John's Harbour 5 site. Appendix 1 includes a site report for St. John's Harbour 5, as one 
had not previously been completed for the site. 
1.2 Arctic Palaeoeskimo Prehistory 
Palaeoeskimo peoples are believed to have a common ancestry based in northeast 
Asia and Alaska beginning about 4500 B.P. These Arctic-adapted peoples spread 
eastward throughout the Arctic, eventually reachlng as far as Greenland, Labrador, 
Newfoundland and St. Pierre-Miquelon (Dumond 1987:86; LeBlanc 2000; Maxwell 
1985:37; McGhee 1990:26, 1996:47; Schledermann 1996:40). Archaeologists have 
identified different Palaeoeskimo groups as emerging from this common ancestry over 
the 3000 to 4000 year occupation of the Arctic. Archaeologically, the Palaeoeskimo 
period includes: 
1) Independence I, which is found in portions of Greenland and Labrador from 
4000 to 3500 B.P.; 
2) Sarqaq, which is found in southwestern Greenland from 3900 to 2700 B.P.; 
4 
3) Pre-Dorset, which is found in the Foxe Basin, Hudson Bay areas and Labrador, 
from 3500 to 3000 B.P.; 
4) Independence II which is found in Greenland and the Central Arctic, from 3000 
to 2500 B.P.; 
5) Groswater, which is found in the Ungava Peninsula, Labrador, Newfoundland, 
the Quebec southern shore and St. Pierre-Miquelon from 3000 to 2100 B.P.; and 
6) Dorset, which is further subdivided into Early, Middle and Late, and found 
primarily east of Victoria Island, into Greenland, Labrador, Newfoundland and St. 
Pierre-Miquelon from 2500 B.P. to 650 B.P. 
(Dumond 1987:86; Gr0nnow 1996; LeBlanc 2000; Maxwell1985:37; 
McGhee 1990:26, 1996:47; Schledermann 1996:40; Tuck 1975). 
(See figure 1.1) 
Relationships amongst the earliest Palaeoeskimo groups (that is, before Dorset) 
have been interpreted by archaeologists in different ways. For example, Independence I 
and Pre-Dorset have been presented by some as representing two separate migrations into 
the Arctic (McGhee 1976:37-38, 1979:8; Maxwell1985:68). They cite evidence that 
suggests that Independece I appears slightly earlier than Pre-Dorset, and is generally 
found at higher latitudes (Schledermann 1996:42-43; McGhee 1990:32, 40). Others have 
5 
suggested that the archaeological differences between the two groups are so minimal that 
they should be collectively called Early Palaeoeskimo (see Maxwell1985:68; Bielowski 
1988:53-54; Wright 1995: 413-414; 422). 
Independence II and Groswater are considered regional variants of so-called 
"Transitional" groups that temporally overlap with both earlier and later (Dorset) 
Palaeoeskimo groups; however it is not always clear what their relationship to preceeding 
and proceeding groups is or whether there is a demonstrable continuity between them. 
The origins of the later Dorset groups is also a matter of some debate. At least 
two models can be used to explain this problem. One model suggests that there are 
several geographic regions in which Dorset developed insitu from existing Pre-Dorset 
populations. The second model favours a centralized location or "core area" from which 
Dorset developed from Pre-Dorset and subsequently spread through diffusion and 
migration (Cox 1978:114; Fitzhugh 1997). 
The core area is a geographic area located around the northern F oxe Basin in the 
Hudson Strait, northern Hudson Bay, and the Hecla and Fury Straits (see Figure 1.1). 
Taylor (1968) concluded that the Pre-Dorset site at Arnapik in northeastern Hudson Bay 
and the Early Dorset site at Tyara, located on Sugluk Island just off the Ungava 
Peninsula, along with other sites in the Eastern Arctic, demonstrated cultural continuity 
between the two groups (Taylor 1968:83). It has been suggested that the Dorset then 
expanded from the core area to other areas throughout the Eastern Arctic, including 
Labrador and Newfoundland (Maxwel11985; Dumond 1987; Fitzhugh 1997). 
Arctic Ocean 
Beaufort Sea 
Figure 1.1 
Canadian Arctic and Subarctic Map 
Map adapted from McGhee (1990:6) 
~~ 0-====-----'- 400 800 km 
Hudson 
Bay 
Greenland 
Atlantic Ocean 
7 
Ramsden and Tuck (200 1) recently argued that while it is clear that there is a 
continuum in the early Palaeoeskimo sites Taylor described in the core area, it does not 
extend into the Dorset period. They maintain that what Taylor and others called Early 
Dorset, is actually related to the preceding Pre-Dorset, and is not really Dorset at all. 
They suggest that Middle Dorset in the high Arctic actually represents the true beginning 
of the Dorset culture. If we accept their argument, we are again faced with the problem 
of Middle Dorset origins, which they have not yet been able to explain (Ramsden and 
Tuck 2001). 
Eventually the Dorset disappeared from the archaeological record at the same 
time the Thule populated the Arctic at about 1000 B.P. (although in Labrador and Ungava 
this occurs later, at c. 600 B.P.). The tools and technology of the Thule focused largely 
on whale hunting and were vastly different from the preceding Palaeoeskimo groups. 
The Thule are not believed to be the descendants of the Dorset; however they are the 
ancestors oftoday's Inuit (Maxwel11985). 
1.3 Newfoundland and Labrador Palaeoeskimo Prehistory 
The Palaeoeskimo period in Newfoundland and Labrador largely mirrors that 
which is found in the Arctic and is divided into Early and Late Palaeoeskimo traditions. 
Early Palaeoeskimo sites date between 4000 and 2000 B.P. and include Independence I, 
Pre-Dorset, and Groswater (Tuck and Fitzhugh 1986:162-163; Tuck 1988:99-113 ). Late 
Palaeoeskimo sites date from 2500 to 650 B.P. and encompass Early, Middle and Late 
Dorset (Cox 1978; Tuck and Fitzhugh1986). 
8 
1.3.1 Independence I and Pre-Dorset in Labrador 
While many place the first groups ofPalaeoeskimo peoples in Labrador in the 
Pre-Dorset period (Cox 1978; Maxwell1985), Tuck (1988:100-102) has argued that the 
tool assemblages of these Early Palaeoeskimo groups most closely resemble the 
Independence I groups found elsewhere in the Arctic. These first Palaeoeskimo groups 
enter northern Labrador around 4000 B.P. Whereas the term Pre-Dorset is more 
generally used to describe Palaeoeskimo groups at around 3500 B.P., Tuck maintains that 
the difference between Independence I and Pre-Dorset in Labrador is not as great as is 
seen elsewhere in the Arctic, and that a continuity exists between these two groups (Tuck 
1988:105; also see Gendron and Pinard 2000:138). 
Pre-Dorset are primarily found only as far south as Hopedale and Makkovik (Cox 
1978:98; Tuck and Fitzhugh 1986:163) (Figure 1.2). However, Tuck (1978:139) has 
indicated a Pre-Dorset presence at Cow Head (DlBk-1) on the Northern Peninsula on the 
Island ofNewfoundland. In Labrador as the Pre-Dorset expanded south there was an 
apparent decrease in population in the northern areas (Tuck 1988:104). Some ofthe 
defining traits of Pre-Dorset include: small triangular hi-pointed and stemmed points 
often with serrated edges; a variety of side and end scrapers; unifacially flaked burins; 
utilized burin spalls; some chipped and ground gravers; and microblades, but less 
numerous than among later Palaeoeskimo groups. Dwellings have been described as 
having axial features or mid-passage boulder pavements along with square hearths with 
upright slabs. As well, structures interpreted as summer dwellings are described as 
having one or two rows of boulders with a central hearth (Tuck 1988; Cox 1978). 
Quebec 
Labrador 
~~.Ramah Bay 
( 
-~ ' "' Saglek Bay 
.<Ja 
Quebec 
dapted from Plate 2 Mapa 991 McManus & Wood 1 
9 
Figure 1.2 
Map of Labrador 
N 
+ 
Atlantic Ocean 
10 
1.3.2 Groswater in Labrador and Newfoundland 
Groswater Palaeoeskimos appear in Labrador c. 3000 B.P (Tuck and Fitzhugh 
1986:163). Fitzhugh defined Groswater in the late 1960s through his work in Groswater 
Bay, Hamilton Inlet. He interpreted Groswater as a regional variant of Dorset, and thus 
named it "Groswater Dorset" (Fitzhugh 1972:148-151). At the same time that Fitzhugh 
was conducting fieldwork in Hamilton Inlet, Tuck was working in Saglek Bay in 
Northern Labrador and found artifacts that he interpreted as Early Dorset (Tuck 1975). A 
more recent evaluation confirmed that the majority of Tuck's Early Dorset sites were 
similar to Fitzhugh's Groswater Dorset sites, and it was concluded that the material found 
by both was from the same culture. With that, the term "Groswater" was adopted to 
describe both Fitzhugh's and Tuck's material (Tuck and Fitzhugh1986). Dropping the 
term "Dorset" from the original name followed the conclusion that the material attributed 
to Groswater did not show as strong a connection to Dorset as first suggested, and that the 
material more reasonably fit the Early Palaeoeskimo tradition rather than the Late 
Palaeoeskimo tradition (Tuck and Fitzhugh1986). Groswater is now interpreted as 
derived from the preceding Pre-Dorset group in Labrador representing a regional insitu 
development. This is evidenced in similarities in side-notched points, side-notched 
bifaces, ground burins with lateral notches and the presence of quartz crystal micro blades 
in both groups. The use of mid-passage house structures and box-hearths in both 
Groswater and Pre-Dorset time periods is also considered as evidence for continuity (Cox 
1978, 1988:3). 
11 
Groswater sites are located along the entire Labrador coast and into western, 
central and southern Newfoundland. Groswater sites disappear from northern Labrador 
after 2500 B.P. but continue in central Labrador until2200 B.P. (Cox 1978). On the 
island ofNewfoundland Groswater persist longer with dates now being reported to 
approximately 1900 B.P. at Port au Choix and in Bird Cove at 1900 B.P. and as late as 
1750 B.P. (Renouf 1994:167; Hartery and Rast 2001, 2002). Groswater is recognized 
archaeologically by box-based and side-notched triangular endblades, many of which are 
plano-convex, and often show evidence of grinding; a large variety of knives and bifaces, 
many of which are comer-notched or stemmed; flared unifacial endscrapers; circular and 
ovate sideblades; chipped and ground burin-like tools; and a large proportion of 
microblades including stemmed and notched examples (Cox 1978; Fitzhugh 1978; 
Renouf 1994). Raw material use includes Ramah chert, quartz crystal and other materials 
in lesser proportions such as nephrite, soapstone and schist, but is dominated by fine-
grained cherts. While only a few Groswater houses have been reported, the Postville 
(G:fBw-4) site in Labrador and the Factory Cove (DlBk-3) site in Newfoundland show 
small, round structures with mid-passage or axial hearth features (Auger 1986; Loring 
and Cox 1986). 
Fitzhugh has described the Groswater as living a modified maritime adaptation, 
with an exploitation of marine resources year-round supplemented regularly with interior 
resources such as caribou, fish and birds (Fitzhugh 1972:161). This conclusion was 
based on Fitzhugh's analysis that despite a lack of faunal remains on Groswater sites, the 
Groswater economy would have been similar, excluding whale hunting, to that known for 
12 
Inuit of the area. Within the Early Palaeoeskimo tradition of Labrador, Groswater can be 
described as one of a group of cultures that are "essentially sequential and are part of a 
single technological tradition, sharing, in addition, sequences of house forms, subsistence, 
and settlement patterns" (Fitzhugh 1980d:23). 
Groswater has also been referred to as "Transitional" in the literature (Maxwell 
1985:115; Renouf 1993, 1994; Nagy 1994). This is largely based on the temporal 
placement of Groswater in the period between Early Paleoeskimo and Late Palaeoeskimo 
and its contemporaneity with Early Dorset populations in the core area, where it is 
suggested that insitu continuity between Pre-Dorset and Dorset groups existed. The 
caution in using the term "Transitional" to describe Groswater, as Maxwell and Renouf 
have done, lies in the definition of the word which implies a continuity between groups, 
that to date, has not been fully demonstrated. This is supported by Cox who states: 
The drastic and sudden changes we see in virtually all material aspects of 
culture - tool types, house forms, raw material usage and settlement 
pattern - together with the persistence of Groswater Dorset in a virtually 
unchanged form farther south, indicate the entrance of a new population 
and population replacement in the north rather than rapid in-place cultural 
evolution (Cox 1978:106). 
Ramsden and Tuck also support this by stating that: 
The Groswater culture represents the end of the Pre-Dorset period ... .It is 
analogous to Independence II and Tyara-type Early Dorset elsewhere in 
the Eastern Arctic and bears little or no resemblance to the Dorset culture 
that replaced it ... (Ramsden and Tuck 2001:9). 
1.3.3 Dorset in Labrador and Newfoundland 
At the same time that Groswater continues on the island of Newfoundland, the 
Dorset appear in Northern Labrador around 2500 B.P. and persist until around 650 B.P .. 
13 
While Early, Middle and Late Dorset are recognized in Labrador (Cox 1977, 1978; Tuck 
and Fitzhugh 1986), only Middle Dorset is recognized on the island ofNewfoundland 
(Cox 1978; Tuck and Fitzhugh 1986). 
The Dorset tool kit includes elements not found in the preceding Groswater, such 
as tip-fluted triangular end blades, and tabular burin-like tools. The raw materials utilized 
by Dorset show an increase in soapstone, Ramah chert and nephrite use. Settlements are 
generally larger and are often located at more outer coastal locations, indicating an 
increase in maritime specialization (Pastore 1996; Renouf 1993). Houses include semi-
subterranean structures with features such as hearths, axial features, raised platforms, 
benches and pits (Harp 1976; Cox 1978:106-107; Maxwell1985:196; Tuck and Fitzhugh 
1986:164). 
1.3.3.1 Early Dorset in Labrador 
Early Dorset sites are restricted to northern Labrador, and there are no known 
Early Dorset sites south of the Nain region. Fitzhugh placed Labrador material into the 
Early Dorset category based in part on perceived similarities to Henry Collin's Early 
Dorset Tl site in the Central Arctic stating that "Early Dorset culture in Labrador is 
believed to have been inaugurated by the arrival of a new population with a culture 
similar to that known from northern Hudson Bay sites such as Southampton Island T1" 
(Fitzhugh 1980c:598). 
Cox's description of Early Dorset includes: 
tip-fluted and a few bifacial triangular points with straight or slightly 
concave bases, notched and multiple notched symmetric bifaces, circular 
sideblades, triangular endscrapers with lateral bifacial flaking, large 
numbers of micro blades, and stemmed or broadly notched burin-like tools 
(Cox 1978:107). 
14 
There are also possible whetstones, angular and rounded soapstone vessels and 
some ground slate endblades. Ramah chert is the primary lithic material, along with 
"smaller amounts of quartz crystal, nephrite, slate, schist and soapstone" (Cox 1978:107). 
Structural information has been reported from Illuvektalik 1 (HhCk-1) in northern 
Labrador, where an apparent winter dwelling is located (Cox 1978:107), and :from 
Komaktorvik 1 (Ih.Cw-1), also in northern Labrador, where there are three houses (Cox 
2002:4). Both sites suggest small dwellings with no mid-passages. 
Analyzing Early, Middle and Late Dorset together, Cox suggested an inner island 
base camp occupation in winter, and a shift to outer islands in the spring for seals was the 
settlement pattern that could be used to described Dorset in general in northern Labrador 
(Cox 1978:111, 113). 
Using the term "Early Dorset" does suggest, as Fitzhugh originally implied, that 
these Early Dorset groups in Labrador are the same as those found in the high Arctic. 
However, Ramsden and Tuck (2001:8) note that Early Dorset assemblages in the Arctic 
include "open socket and sliced harpoon heads, large numbers of micro blades, few 
spalled burins which are eventually replaced by ground burin-like-tools, triangular and 
side-notched end blades, round or oval soapstone lamps, and ovate side blades". 
In comparison they note that Middle Dorset in the Arctic shows that: 
... double-line-hole, closed socket forms [of harpoon heads] entirely 
replace the sliced and open socket forms; in lithic items, spalled burins 
disappear entirely and are replaced by burin-like-tools; end blades are 
predominantly triangular or multiple side-notched and sharpened by the 
tip-fluting technique; rectangular soapstone vessels replace the small 
round or oval lamps; sled and probably breathing hole sealing gear appear; 
houses become well-defined rectangular semi-subterranean forms, often 
with paved floors or sleeping areas and side benches, and sometimes with 
tunnel entrances (Ramsden and Tuck 2001:8). 
15 
Comparing these trait lists to Cox's (1978) description of Labrador Early Dorset 
leads to the conclusion that despite Fitzhugh's initial assertion of similarities with the 
Central Arctic's Early Dorset sites, the traits presented for Early Dorset in Labrador fit 
more with the description ofMiddle Dorset in the Central Arctic. For example Early 
Dorset in Labrador also have triangular endblades with multiple side-notching and tip-
fluted tips, a lack ofburins and the presence ofburin-like-tools. As such, Early Dorset in 
Labrador is interpreted in this thesis as the beginning of Middle or "Classic" Dorset and 
does not comprise part of the Early Paleoeskimo period, as it does elsewhere. This is 
confirmed in a recent paper where Cox (2002:4) states: 
Labrador Early Dorset is classic Dorset, with virtually all of the defining early 
Dorset characteristics including triangular tip-fluted harpoon endblades, multiple 
notched lance endblades, also tip-fluted, extensively polished burin-like tools 
made of chert and nephrite, soapstone lamps and cooking pots, and semi-
subterranean houses. 
In view of this distinction, the term "Labrador Early Dorset" will be employed 
throughout this thesis to distinguish it clearly from the Early Dorset of the Central Arctic. 
1.3.3.2 Middle Dorset in Labrador and Newfoundland 
Around 2000 B.P. the Dorset expanded beyond the geographical limits of 
Labrador Early Dorset; at this point they are referred to as Middle Dorset. The Middle 
Dorset inhabited the entire coast of Labrador and much of the Newfoundland coastline, 
except the A val on Peninsula. Cox suggests that there is a continuum between Labrador 
Early Dorset and Middle Dorset, since there is little difference in their technologies (Cox 
16 
1977:87-88). Some of the differences that are apparent include the presence in the 
Middle Dorset toolkits of unifacial triangular points, a wider variety of notched and 
unnotched bifaces which are either symmetric or asymmetric, and a decline in the number 
microblades, with an increase in their width (Cox 1977:88, 1978:107). Endblade bases 
are also more concave for the Middle Dorset (Cox 1978:107) and tip-fluting on endblades 
is reported to occur on the ventral surface for Middle Dorset, as opposed to the dorsal 
surface for Labrador Early Dorset (Fitzhugh personal communication 1998). Stemmed 
chipped and ground burin-like tools are replaced by notched and unnotched forms, both 
chipped and ground and fully ground. Houses are generally larger, are often semi-
subterreanean and can contain well defined axial features (Cox 1977:88; 1978:107). 
1.3.3.3 Late Dorset in Labrador 
Late Dorset is dated between 1000 to 650 B.P. and is confined to northern 
Labrador. It is defmed by bifacially flaked, unfluted triangular points with concave 
bases; a variety ofbifaces including notched and stemmed specimens; diagonal knives 
and scrapers; notched and stemmed flake knives; triangular or parallel-sided endscrapers; 
micro blades increase in the range of size and their frequency declines; variously shaped 
burin-like tools that are tabular and ground; ground schist continues to occur and 
soapstone vessels are usually round or oval. Ramah chert continues to be the 
predominant lithic material used for the production of stone tools. Structural information 
for Late Dorset has been reported from northern Labrador at Okak 3 (HbCl-3) where a 
roughly rectangular structure with a mid-passage feature and flat paving slabs was found 
(Cox 1978:111). 
17 
Table 1.1 summarizes the characteristics ofthe Groswater, and the Early, Middle 
and Late Dorset in Labrador. 
1.4 Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset relationship 
The relationship between Early and Late Palaeoeskimo groups is an important 
research question in Arctic archaeology (see Murray 1996; Ramsden and Tuck 2001). In 
Newfoundland and Labrador this centers specifically on the relationship of Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset. While this has not been discussed in great detail in the literature, 
there are some statements to indicate the thinking to date. For example Tuck states that: 
Although these two traditions [Early Palaeoeskimo and Late 
Palaeoeskimo] clearly share a Palaeo-Eskimo or Arctic Small Tool 
tradition heritage no direct relationship between the two, nor, in fact, even 
any substantial evidence of contact between them can be inferred from the 
archaeological record in Newfoundland and Labrador (Tuck 1988:99). 
Fitzhugh suggested the pattern was that of the Labrador Early Dorset moving into 
areas already abandoned by Groswater when he states: 
Radiocarbon dates from Early Dorset sites between Seven Islands Bay and 
Nain indicate a period of southward expansion into areas formerly held by 
Groswater Dorset groups. Some sites suggest a limited amount of mixing 
between these cultures, but generally the picture of replacement seems 
upheld (Fitzhugh 1980c:598). 
As suggested in this quote, Fitzhugh did entertain the idea that there may be some 
"mixing" between the cultures. The most specific example is found in his descripton of 
St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30, which he describes as a Groswater site undergoing 
influence from Labrador Early Dorset based on an assemblage that appeared atypical for 
Groswater, but was reminiscent ofEarly Dorset (Fitzhugh 1981:36). Fitzhugh also 
suggests that, while not the case in Labrador, in Newfoundland there may be room to 
T bl 11 C a e . ompanson o roswa er, arty, I e an ae orse ra1 sIn a ra or . . fG t E I M"ddl dL t D t T "t • L b d 
Groswater Early Dorset Middle Dorset Late Dorset 
3000-2100 B.P. 2500-2400 B.P. 2000-1400 B.P. 1000-650 B.P. 
Location North, central and southern Northern Labrador North, central and southern Northern Labrador 
Labrador coast Labrador coast 
End blades plano-convex, box-based, side- tip-fluted and a few bifacial tip-fluted and a few bifacial bifacially flaked, unfluted 
notched end blades triangular points with straight triangular points with straight triangular points with concave 
or slightly concave bases or slightly concave bases bases 
some ground slate endblades the inclusion ofunifacial generally larger in size 
tip-fluting on dorsal side 
triangular points 
tip-fluting on ventral side 
bases are more concave 
Bifaces large variety ofbifaces notched and multiple notched notched and unnotched bifaces a variety ofbifaces including 
comer-notched or stemmed symmetric bifaces, are either symmetric or notched and stemmed and 
asymmetrical bifacial knives asymmetric notched ones; 
increased variety diagonal knives 
Scrapers flared-end rectangular and triangular with lateral bifacial triangular and unifacially flaked diagonal scrapers 
triangular unifacial flaking, 
triangular or parallel-sided 
Micro blades large number of microblades, large number of micro blades there is a decline in the number microblades increase in the 
including notched and stemmed microblades, with an increase range of size and frequency 
in their width declines 
Tip-fluted spalls none tip-fluted spalls tip-fluted spalls none 
Burins few true burins none none none 
Burin spalls few burin spalls none none none 
Burin-like tools chipped and ground burin-like stemmed or broadly notched increased variety burin-like tools that are tabular 
tools burin-like tools which artf most common is fully ground and fully ground with a variety 
partially or fully ground with one or two notches of shapes 
Side blades circular and ovate sideblades circular sideblades, none none 
Vessels some oval or sub-rectangular angular and rounded soapstone predominantly rectangular soapstone vessels are usually 
lamos vessels vessels with some oval lamps round or oval 
Groswater Early Dorset Middle Dorset Late Dorset 
3000-2100 B.P. 2500-2400 B.P. 2000-1400 B.P. 1000-650 B.P. 
Materials high proportion of fine-grained Ramah chert is the primary Ramah chert is the primary Ramah chert continues to be 
cherts followed in proportion lithic material lithic material the predominate material used 
by the use of Ramah 
some fine-grained cherts, quartz some fine-grained cherts, quartz some fine-grained cherts, quartz 
smaller quantities of quartz crystal, nephrite, slate, schist crystal, nephrite, slate, schist crystal, nephrite, slate, schist 
crystal, nephrite, slate, schist and soapstone and soapstone and soapstone 
and soapstone 
Structures small dwellings with central small subrectangular houses more defined, with semi- roughly rectangular with mid-
paving and mid-passage hearth with no evidence of mid- subterranean houses with well passage feature and flat paving 
of stone slabs passages defined mid-passages slabs 
(Cox 1977, 1978, 2002; Tuck and Fitzhugh 1996; Fitzhugh personal communication) 
20 
of insitu transition from Groswater to Dorset (Fitzhugh 1980:598). 
Likewise, Hood suggested the need to further consider the relationships between 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset stating that: 
... continuities in house form indicated at Nukasusutok-12, transitional 
evidence from recently excavated Groswater Dorset/Early Dorset sites like 
St. John's Harbour in the Nain region (Fitzhugh 1981:36), and Fitzhugh's 
hypothesis that Newfoundland Dorset developed from a Groswater Dorset 
base suggest that alternatives to a discontinuity model should be 
considered: either rapid in situ development or a more complex interaction 
scenario (Hood 1986:54). 
Beyond these statements however, a systematic review of the Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset sites and collections has not been done to further examine the 
evidence of a relationship between these two groups. 
By examining the evidence for and against interaction between Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset, this thesis will provide further insight on this issue from a 
Labrador perspective. 
1.5 Summary of Arctic Paleoeskimo Prehistory 
The primary points of this chapter can be summarized in the following statements: 
1) As with most of the Arctic, the general Paleoeskimo cultural history ofLabrador is 
well understood and there is generally enough clear evidence to be able to place sites 
within a cultural group based on the artifacts, dates, site locations and house structures. 
2) Within Paleoeskimo research, the nature of relationships between groups has been 
acknowledged as an important research question in order for us to more fully understand 
the cultural groups. 
21 
3) Beyond general references, the nature of these relationships has not been well explored 
through a systematic review of the collections and evidence available for the Labrador 
Paleoeskimo period. 
4) The St. John's Harbour 5 site, HeCi-30, located near Nain, may be a good site to begin 
exploring the potential relationship between two Palaeoeskimo groups in Labrador, 
namely Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset. 
2.1 Introduction 
CHAPTER2 
CULTURAL INTERACTIONS AND 
THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNATURES 
As established in Chapter 1, the nature of the relationship between the Early 
Paleoeskimo and Late Palaeoeskimo traditions, and specifically between Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset in Labrador has not been fully explored. St. John's Harbour 5, 
HeCi-30 has been described as a Groswater site that appears to be undergoing influence 
from Labrador Early Dorset, thus implying a relationship of interaction between the 
groups. However, in order to determine whether this is the case at this one site it is 
necessary to examine the relationship between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
throughout Labrador. Is a relationship demonstrable and what is the nature of that 
relationship? Is the relationship one of direct interaction, indirect interaction, or did 
interaction occur at all? Is St. John's Harbour 5 truly reflective of an overall Labrador 
pattern of interaction between these groups, or is it an anomaly, or does it actually 
demonstrate interaction at all? 
To answer these questions it is necessary to look at how interaction occurs 
between groups and what the results of interaction are and how they can be recognized 
archaeologically. This chapter reviews these points, along with presenting three possible 
interaction scenarios that could exist between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset that 
will be tested in the following chapter. 
23 
2.2 How Interaction Occurs 
Interaction among human groups can occur in various situations, and has often 
been linked to ecological or resource needs and the resulting strategies used to cope with 
these needs (Halstead and O'Shea 1989; Kelly 1992:46; Spielmann 1991:4). 
Spielmann ( 1991) describes interaction as the result of economics and 
environment. The responses to changing variables in each include buffering exchange 
and mutualistic exchange. Buffering exchange sees an increase in the exchange of items 
between groups during times of resource scarcity. Mutualistic exchange, on the other 
hand, sees groups producing food and other resources specifically for trade. As a result 
specialization can occur within groups and a relationship of interdependence develops 
because "each group becomes dependent, to a greater or lesser degree, on the materials or 
services the other group provides" (Spielmann 1991 :5). Different groups in different 
regions or ecological zones can then trade items unique to each area. This occurs during 
periods where there is high resource abundance, and the cost of production of the 
exchanged item is low. "Thus mutualism essentially takes advantage of, and perhaps 
emphasizes, niche separation between populations" (Spielmann 1991:5). 
In order for this interaction to occur, however, a level of mobility is required for 
both groups to be within geographic proximity for trade to occur. Mobility overall is an 
important concept in understanding interaction "because the ways people move exert 
strong influences on their culture and society" (Kelly 1992:43). Further, as Renoufstates: 
"Mobility is important because it underpins how a group manages resource 
unpredictability. This in turn affects how a group interacts with others" (Renouf et al. 
2000:108). 
24 
Although the mobility patterns of hunters and gathers are often linked specifically 
to the need to gather food resources, there are many other elements that are required by a 
society that may result in the need to move to obtain them (Anthony 1990; Binford 1983; 
Kelly 1983, 1992; Lee 1966; Mine and Smith 1989; Nagy 2000:143; Rankin 1998; Rouse 
1986). As Kelly (1992) states: 
Foraging is an important variable, but by no means does it alone determine 
mobility. People also respond to religious, kinship, trade, artistic and 
personal obligations ... not all residential movements are directly controlled 
by subsistence. People move to gain access to firewood or raw materials 
for tools, or because insects have become intolerable. Movements can be 
socially or politically motivated, as people seek spouses, allies, or 
shamans, or move in response to sorcery, death, and political 
forces ... Finally, residential mobility itself may be culturally valued. 
Formerly mobile hunter-gatherers often express a desire to move around in 
order to visit friends, see what is happening elsewhere, or to relieve 
boredom (Kelly 1992:48). 
While all of these situations may not result in direct interaction with other groups, 
many, such as the need for marriage partners and allies, can result in relationships being 
forged outside the original social group. 
Social characteristics of a group may also affect the likelihood of interaction 
occurring (Binford 1980; Broom et al. 1954; Schrotman and Urban 1987; Spielmann 
1991). Binford (1980) explains residential mobility versus logistical mobility, which 
results in patterns identified as collectors and foragers (Kelly 1992:44). Foragers use 
residential bases from which they leave to gather food daily. They do not store foods but 
rather gather it as it is encountered. The size of the group and how often the bases are 
moved will depend on availability and sustainability of the resources (Binford 1980:5-7). 
25 
Collectors, on the other hand work to supply themselves with resources through 
organized task groups (Binford 1980:10). As a result, collectors store food. The different 
strategies employed by collectors result in different types of sites compared with foragers. 
There is a residential base and a location, along with field camp, station and cache sites 
(Binford 1980:10-12). In sum, "foragers move consumers to goods with frequent 
residential moves, while collectors move goods to consumers with generally fewer 
residential moves" (Binford 1980:15). 
Binford ties the mobility strategies employed by groups strongly to environmental 
factors. The more unstable an environment or scattered the resources, the more frequent 
the move (Binford 1980:14-15). Thus, the type ofhunter-gather group a culture is in 
Binford's continuum can indicate the likely mobility patterns used and can predict the 
likelihood of interactive scenarios occurring during higher periods of mobility. 
Broom et al. (1954:975) suggested that factors affecting cultural change include: 
"(a) boundary-maintaining mechanisms which are found in "closed" as opposed to 
"open" systems; (b) the relative "rigidity" or "flexibility" of the internal structure of a 
cultural system; and (c) the nature and functioning of self-correcting mechanisms in 
cultural systems." 
For example, boundary-maintaining mechanisms can control how people are 
included in a group, what the social structure is, and how willingly outsiders are accepted. 
Whether the changes that can be brought on by an interactive situation are accepted or 
rejected by a group can depend on how rigid or flexible a group is(Broom et al. 
1954:975-976). New tools, materials or ideas may be readily incorporated into a group's 
system. On the other hand, these new items may be rejected and in order to assert a 
group's own uniqueness there may be an increase in the use of familiar tools and 
materials. 
26 
The increased mobility of an open system should result in more opportunities for 
interaction compared to fewer opportunities in a closed system with less mobility. 
Comparing closed and open systems, we see that closed systems have rigid boundaries or 
rules for living within the society, while open systems are more fluid. These systems can 
also be linked to the availability of resources. It is more likely that a system will be 
closed where there are abundant and reliable resources available in an area. The 
assumption is that if resources are abundant, there is no need to expand beyond the 
known area, nor is there a need to rely on others. Conversely, fewer resources in an 
immediate area means groups are more likely to move about in order to seek out 
information to obtain resources (Broom et al. 1954:975-976; Friesen 2000:210). 
Other factors besides mobility and group characteristics also affect interaction. 
For example, interaction between North American Plains and Pueblo peoples has been 
described as the result of climate, commodities being desired by the different groups, 
differential power among the groups and population size and density (Spielmann 
1991: 15). The size of a group is a factor in levels of interaction since larger groups can 
use larger geographic areas in smaller periods of time which increases the opportunity for 
encounters with greater numbers of people. 
Linton (1963a, 1963b) argues that the acceptance or rejection of new cultural 
elements is not only linked with technological efficiency, but factors such as prestige and 
27 
the compatibility with the existing culture are important in determining whether new 
traits are accepted. Tools that have no use in one's cultural setting may not be accepted at 
all. Agricultural tools, for example, are going to be of little use to hunters and gatherers 
in an arctic environment. 
Finally, non face-to-face interaction scenarios need to be considered since they 
can also result in cultural change. This is particularly the case in geographic regions that 
are shared by groups of people, but not necessarily at the same time. fudirect contact can, 
for example, occur when one culture group learns of another by scavenging the previously 
inhabited siteg of the former group (Loring and Cox 1986:68; Park 2000). 
2.3 The Results of Interaction and Archaeological Indicators 
futeraction can result in change in some or all of the social mechanisms operating 
in a society. The results of interaction can include trade or exchange of ideas and goods, 
hostilities or competition, assimilation or extinction and avoidance or coexistence to 
name a few. All of these should have some archaeological signatures (Broom et al. 1954; 
Bielawski 1979; Green 1991; Odess 1998; Rankin 1998; Shennan 1996). 
Trade or exchange in tangible items such as tools or raw materials is arguably the 
most archaeologically recognizable outcome of interaction. Archaeologists use the 
presence or absence of foreign materials as indications that some form of trade is 
occurring. As Spielmann notes: 
futersocietal activity can take a variety of forms, from peaceable trade to 
raiding and warfare. Societies may exchange marriage partners, share 
information, form alliances for joint ventures, and participate in rituals 
together. Thus, interaction is not limited to trade, let alone trade in durable 
objects. However, because archaeologists are usually left with only durable 
cultural and environmental remains for their analyses, trade has been the 
primary focus of archaeological research on interaction (Spielmann 1991:3). 
28 
Unfortunately, recognizing trade of ideas, beliefs and information or patterns of 
avoidance in the archaeological record is much harder to do, which limits the 
interpretation of relationships. As a result, we may be missing meaningful interactive 
relationships between groups that inhabited areas at the same time, but which did not 
exchange items left behind in the archaeological record. By analysing geographic 
placement as a whole, or noting overlapping site locations specifically, we may be able to 
infer a relationship even if it is not indicated in the material culture. 
Conflicts between groups can lead to one or both groups leaving an area, avoiding 
each other, or one group being assimilated by the other (Bielawski 1979:104). Raiding of 
resources from other groups directly, or from the territories of other groups can also be 
considered hostile or parasitic (Spielmann 1991b). Archaeologically, hostilities and 
warfare can be seen in wounds on human remains and weaponry in the material record. 
In the case of assimilation the material culture of the assimilated group will likely 
disappear and be replaced by the dominant group's material culture. This can result in the 
former group's original material cultural no longer being archaeologically visible. 
A voidance may result in groups actively choosing to not interact with one another 
and not compete for resources. On forager and farmer interactions Green (1991) notes 
that differences in how groups use the land can result in changes in the rules for 
exploiting the landscape (Green 1991 :223; Rankin 1998:21). Further, the result of 
interaction may be that groups move away from one another as " ... mobility can be a 
strategy to maintain cultural autonomy" (Kelly 1992:48). 
29 
While trade and exchange is one form of coexistence that results in material 
culture changes in both groups, another scenario shows groups may coexist with one 
another in an area with little to no change in each others culture. For example, Rankin 
(1998:16) notes that "foragers and farmers can live in proximity for centuries without 
adopting one another's socio-economic systems". Archaeologically this should be seen 
with little or no adoption of material cultures of the other group, and distinctive site 
placement in relation to the other group. 
Another form of coexistence is seen with sharing the landscape. Renouf (2003) 
comments on niche differentation, where there are distinct patterns of settlement, and 
niche overlap, where the same coastal resources are being used. In the case of Recent 
Indian and Dorset populations on the island of Newfoundland, Renouf notes: 
... while populations of both cultures existed in the same regions, site 
distributions do not fully overlap. This suggests that both culture groups 
were situating their sites with respect to each other. This does not mean 
avoidance or hostility but an accommodation to the other culture's camps 
and settlements - passively sharing the landscape at the same time as 
actively sharing resources and information (Renouf 2003:1 0). 
As Renouf suggests, this interaction scenario of avoidance or of sharing resource 
areas should be reflected archaeologically within the site location patterns, if not in the 
material culture itself. 
Of course the outcome of interaction between groups does not have to result in 
only one type of relationship. As Spielmann (1991b:37-38) notes, ecologists have looked 
at mutualistic relations amongst species and the results of interaction ''vary from 
competitive to parasitic to mutalistic" and that the results are "outcome - and situation -
specific rather than fixed". There is not necessarily one form of interaction between 
species, which of course, Spielmann argues, should also be reflected within human 
groups. 
2.4 Challenges in Identifying Interaction Archaeologically 
30 
While discussions of interaction suggest that there should be certain outcomes 
visible in the archaeological record, the nature of the archaeological record and formation 
processes make such assessments difficult at best. Some of the limitations considered in 
the study of interaction include: 
a) Limitations of Archaeological Methods and Techniques 
Differences in surveying techniques, data collecting and analyses all contribute to 
the data available from an archaeological site. These differences directly affect the 
evidence available to researchers and can determine whether interaction can or cannot be 
recognized at in the archaeological record. For example, areas that have only been 
surface tested only show a minor part of the archaeological record. Without more in-
depth excavations material clues that indicate interaction can be missed. 
Since Arctic specialists have often studied the archaeological records of cultures 
in relative isolation of one another, patterns of intergroup interaction have often been 
overlooked. For example, in discussing possible contact between Recent Indian and 
Palaeo-Eskimos Renouf et al. state: "Archaeological research on these two cultural 
traditions continued but they were studied in isolation from each other, as if they had 
maintained in reality the separateness that archaeological research had imposed upon 
them heuristically" (Renouf et al. 2000:1 06). 
31 
Varying approaches to artifact identification can lead to differing conclusions. 
Perhaps the best known example was Jenness' identification of the Coat's Island and 
Cape Dorset collections that led him to define the Dorset culture, while Mathiassen 
maintained that the differences within "Thule" collections indicated internal variation and 
not a separate culture. Seventy-five years after Jenness, most archaeologists still rely 
largely on visual inspections for the identification of artifacts and material types. The 
misidentification of lithic materials that have very similar appearances remains a 
problem, thus limiting our ability to identify possible interaction (Odess 1998:422-424). 
The identification and understanding of stylistic differences and the extent to 
which differences or similarities in an archaeological assemblage are significant also 
remains problematic. This is not trivial since " ... to speak of artifacts from different 
contemporaneous sites as similar in this context is to imply that interaction between the 
makers or their ancestors took place, while to say that they are dissimilar suggests that 
they do not constitute such evidence" (Odess 1998:417). 
Recognizing the type of interaction can lead to different interpretations. McGhee 
(1997), in responding to Park's discussion on Dorset and Thule contact says: 
Park assembles convincing arguments against a significant degree of 
acculturation having occurred between Dorset and Thule peoples. However, 
the absence of acculturation cannot stand as evidence against contact having 
taken place between the two groups. One would expect evidence of 
acculturation or the transfer of technology if close and long-lasting 
relationships were established, or if a significant proportion of one 
population had been incorporated into the other group. However, if contacts 
were sporadic, ephemeral, or hostile, we might not expect to find this sort of 
evidence. I would suggest that the nature of contact between Dorset 
Palaeoeskimo and Thule!Inuit was more likely to have been of the latter 
kind, and that we should perhaps consider the sort of evidence which we 
would expect to survive as witness to such encounters (McGhee 1997:210). 
32 
The reliance on only one or two lines of evidence as indicators of interaction has 
also been shown to be problematic. For example, Odess points out that a change in raw 
materials used may indicate interaction; however, interaction would be missed if only 
styles of the artifacts were anlayzed that did not show a change at the same time that the 
raw materials did (Odess 1998:429). 
Using poorly determined cultural histories as analogies for other areas is another 
concern that needs to be considered (see Hood 1986:54). Odess suggests: 
... that in regions such as the Arctic, where local culture histories of many 
areas are still poorly understood and many assemblages insufficiently 
dated, attempts to use style as an indicator of interaction run the risk of 
relying too heavily on typology-based chronologies derived from other 
areas to meet with success. Implicit in such chronologies is an assumption 
of homogeneity in the regional distribution of stylistic forms, which risks 
obscuring significant spatiotemporal variations in the emergence and 
spread of particular tool forms (Odess 1998:421 ). 
Likewise in those situations where the poorly understood assemblage does not 
conform to other areas of the known archaeological record there can be a tendency to 
dismiss radiocarbon dates that do not match the typology-based chronologies (Odess 
1998:421). 
Archaeologists have also used historical comparison or ethnographic studies to 
interpret the archaeological record for evidence of interaction (Wobst 1978). It is 
suggested that by studying contemporary groups, archaeologists may be able to test for 
patterns in the prehistoric record. Observed patterns from the ethnographic record, 
however, do not necessarily make their way into or, are preserved in the archaeological 
record. Ethnological studies are also limited as they only provide a snapshot of 
information in time and place (Wobst 1978) and contemporary situations are not 
necessarily accurate representations of the past (Guyer 1997). In studying Thule 
archaeology for example, the direct historical approach from today's Inuit has merit; 
however, its application to the Dorset is more speculative (Friesen 2000:209). 
b) Incorrect Identification of Interaction 
33 
As tools and raw materials are the evidence most often looked at to identify 
interaction in the archaeological record, it is important to consider other reasons why 
foreign tools and materials may show up in the collection of a site. Archaeologically this 
may be caused by other cultural phenomenon such as the reuse of sites. Reuse of a site 
can lead to apparent mixing of artifacts that may suggest face-to-face interaction. 
Scavenging of sites may also lead to artifacts from one culture in another's material 
culture. Park (2000) argues that traits cited as proof of contact between Dorset and Thule 
may be the result of other processes, suggesting for example that Dorset materials on 
Thule sites could be explained as being salvaged from abandoned Dorset sites. It is 
known that older sites in the Arctic were often re-used or materials from them removed 
for the purpose of constructing new houses (Bielawski 1988:57). 
Peterson (1997:244) also outlines a number of reasons for cultural change 
including changed environmental conditions, specialization, new material availability, 
contact and fashion that can produce archaeological signatures similar to interaction. 
While some of the changes seen in the archaeological record can be interpreted as a result 
of a change in one component of the system, such as interaction, it is difficult to know 
what other systems may have contributed to the change seen archaeologically. "Beyond 
34 
recognizing the systemic nature of culture there is no real consensus among 
archaeologists on how to defme and measure the variables, components, and subsystems 
within a cultural system" (D. Kennett 1996:246). 
c) Problems Specific to Identifying Interaction in the Arctic Record 
A problem specific to identifying interaction in the Arctic is the general similarity 
of Palaeoeskimo cultures. While it has been shown in Chapter 2 that there are key 
differences between the Palaeoeskimo groups, and particularly between Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset, there are many similarities that they share by virtue of belonging 
to the broad Palaeoeskimo tradition. Examples of interaction research, such as Dorset 
and Thule interaction (Park 2000; McGhee 1997) or Dorset and Norse interaction 
(Sutherland 2000), focus on groups that have significant differences in their tools, 
materials and settlement and subsistence patterns. For these scenarios interaction can 
arguably be more easily recognized in the archaeological record. fu the case of Groswater 
and Labrador Early Dorset however, it is not always possible to easily recognize the 
presence of one group at another's site based solely on tool types and raw material use. 
For example, while Groswater use colourful cherts they also utilize Ramah chert, a 
material used heavily by Labrador Early Dorset. As well, certain tool categories such as 
microblades are abundant with little differences between the groups. As such, the 
presence of these traits alone is not sufficient to indicate presence or absence of the other 
group. fu addition, small findspots, without clearly diagnostic materials cannot be relied 
on as their cultural affiliations may not be clear. 
35 
Dating in the Arctic also brings specific problems as has been discussed by 
McGhee and Tuck (1976), including issues such as the reservoir effect, and dating old 
and reused wood. Further, the dates that are obtained from reliable samples on 
Palaeoeskimo sites are from a problematical period in palaeo-environmental history. 
Calibration curves for this period reflect variations in the natural rate of Carbon 14 
production which in turn produce multiple calendrical dates (Bowman 1990:55). This is 
in addition to the fact that radio carbon dating does not represent an exact date, but rather 
is the statistical probability that the date of the sample falls within a specified date range, 
which could span generations. 
The fact that the Arctic archaeological record can be ephemeral because of high 
mobility of people in small group sizes adds to methodological problems, including 
survey techniques, information recording and subsequent interpretations (Biewlawski 
1988:71). Shallow stratigraphy, reuse of sites, and other post depositional disturbances, 
both natural and cultural, can lead to mixing of assemblages and interpretation 
difficulties. 
Varying Arctic environments also provide differential preservation of sites. fu 
some locations such as Newfoundland and Labrador there is a lack of faunal preservation 
because of acidic soil and warm summer conditions. Faunal remains are important in 
expanding our understanding of ecological conditions and can point to interactive 
scenarios of exchange between different ecological zones (Spielmann 1991 :5). Cox and 
Spiess (1980) comment that without faunal preservation their reconstruction of Dorset 
subsistence-settlement systems "had to rely heavily on comparative information about site 
36 
placement and configuration from historically and archaeologically known Labrador Inuit 
sites and data on seasonal distribution of animal resources'' (Cox and Speiss 1980:660). 
Conversely, LeBlanc (1994 :91) at the Crane Site in the western Arctic commented that a 
rise in permafrost helped in preservation; however, the cultural layer was often disturbed 
and artifacts were found dispersed throughout the profile due to the effects of 
cryoturbation, desiccation cracking, rodent disturbance, and slumping, particularly near 
the terrace edge. 
2.5 Archaeological Evidence of Interaction 
Despite these kinds of problems it should still be possible to combine a number of 
lines of evidence to determine whether cultural interaction can be identified from the 
archaeological data. Guyer (1997) used a model that incorporates dates, seasonality and 
subsistence activities along with geographic proximity and the mobility patterns of each 
group to determine the plausibility of the hypothesis that Dorset and Thule competed for 
resources. Odess ( 1998) argued that the approach of using only an analysis of artifact 
style or an analysis of raw materials alone is inadequate, and that only by looking at both 
together could you have a more holistic picture for recognizing interaction. 
While Gendron and Pinard (2000) discussed the determination of cultural 
affiliations, their statement is also applicable to determining the presence of interaction 
when they say: 
Reliance on simple similarities (or dissimilarities) of individual 
components to determine cultural affiliation appears to be insufficient if 
we desire improving our knowledge of eastern Arctic prehistory. An 
approach that takes into consideration multiple elements as part of a 
dynamic system will prove more robust results than the culture-history and 
typological approaches (still) favoured in eastern Arctic prehistory 
(Gendron and Pinard 2000:138). 
37 
Following the examples of Guyer, Odess, and Gendron and Pinard, a multivariate 
approach to identifying interaction is preferable for this study. Several lines of 
archaeological evidence can be expected to indicate interaction if it took place. While 
some of these lines of evidence will only contribute in minor ways, others are crucial in 
the assessment for interaction. As indicated in Chapter 1 there are several lines of 
evidence that will be examined. The following outlines more specifically how each could 
be used in this exercise. 
a) Dates 
Dates associated with the sites of two different groups can indicate a type of 
potential interaction. If there are overlapping date ranges then there is the possibility of 
face-to-face interaction occurring during that time period. If dates do not overlap, then 
there may have been no interaction, or in the case of scavenged sites, a form of indirect 
interaction. Archaeologically, dates are primarily supplied through radiocarbon analysis 
or through stratigraphic information. 
b) Site Location 
Site locations can also indicate the possible nature of interaction. Overlapping 
sites dated to the same time period may indicate direct interaction, while site locations 
clearly separated may be the result of no interaction or a form of avoidance or an 
understanding on how to share the resources of the region by maintaining separate 
locations. 
38 
c) Tools 
The primary methods used to recognize interaction archaeologically are usually 
based on artifacts, and specifically their typologies or styles and their materials (Odess 
1998:417; Park 2000:192). The tools used by each group need to be identified and 
quantified. What are the typical items that define each group archaeologically? How are 
they the same or different from the other group? Direct interaction may be recognized 
through indications that tools clearly associated with one contemporaneous group are 
being used to some extent by the other. For example, a typically Dorset endblade with 
tip-fluting showing up among a range of Groswater box-based endblades, or a Groswater 
box-based endblade that is tip-fluted could be interpreted to indicate interaction. 
d) Raw Materials Used 
Patterns of raw material use can be an important element in assessing potential 
relationships. Knowing what raw materials are used predominately by a group can 
indicate the geographic boundaries ofthe group. If materials generally associated with 
one group's geographic area are showing up in the assemblages of another group, and 
outside ofthe latter's geographic area, then it may also indicate possible relationships 
such as trade. Further, if access to material sources is limited to one of the groups, then 
control of that resource may be important in defining a relationship. If one group can be 
shown to change patterns of raw material use around the time that interaction is possible, 
then interaction may be given as a reason for the observed change. 
e) House Styles and Site Features 
Differences and similarities between house $tyles of two separate but 
chronologically overlapping cultures may suggest interaction, especially if a change in 
styles can be correlated to the period in time that the interaction is suggested to have 
occurred. 
f) Settlement and Subsistence Patterns 
39 
Overlapping subsistence and settlement patterns of groups in adjacent geographic 
regions will increase the probability that the groups will meet and thus interact. 
While any one of these lines of evidence alone may be explainable in other ways 
(such as different house styles actually being reflective of seasonality differences), 
combining all of them should provide a more complete picture on which to determine if 
the patterns observed are a result of interaction. 
2.6 Identifying Interaction between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
Utilizing these lines of evidence three interaction scenarios and their expected 
results are considered for Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset: 
Scenario 1: Direct Interaction Between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
Interaction 
40 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset had face-to-face contact such as trade or 
exchange. If this is the case, then we might expect to the results outlined in Table 
2.1. 
T bl 21 E a e . xpecte arc aeo og1ca resu so 1rec n erac on . . d h 1 . l It rD· t I t ti 
Line of Evidence Expectations 
Dates There is an overlap in the dates. 
Site Locations There are sites that have both Groswater and Labrador Early 
Dorset traits either at the exact same location or within a small 
geographic region~ 
Tools Made There is a strong likelihood that tools will show clear evidence of 
mixing of stylistic and functional traits between the two groups. 
Materials Used There should be a change in traditional materials used with the 
inclusion of some foreign material generally associated with the 
other group. 
House Styles There is the possibility that there will be a change in traditional 
house styles with elements associated with the other group being 
adopted. 
Settlement and There may be changes in patterns of land use as a response to the 
Subsistence other group's presence. 
Patterns 
41 
Scenario 2: Indirect or Passive Inter,action between Groswater and Labrador Early 
Dorset 
While in the same place at the same time, Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
had limited contact with limited or ephemeral evidence of interaction available in 
the archaeological record. If this is the case, then we might expect to the results 
outlined in Table 2.2. 
T bl 2 2 E td h I . I It flndi t p I t a e . xpec e arc aeo og~ca resu so rec or ass1ve n eraction . . 
Line of Evidence Expectations 
Dates There should be an overlap in the dates. 
Site Locations While sites should be in the same geographic region, they may be 
at different locations within the region. There will be few sites 
that show both Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset present at the 
exact same location. 
Tools Made There may be some examples of tools that show evidence of a 
mixing of stylistic and fimctional traits between the two groups. 
Materials Used There may be some evidence of a change in traditional materials 
used with the inclusion of some foreign material generally 
associated with the other group, but this will not be a regular 
occurrence. 
House Styles There may be a change in traditional house styles with elements 
associated with the other groups being adopted. 
Settlement and There may be changes in patterns of land use as a response to the 
Subsistence other group's presence. 
Patterns 
42 
Scenario 3: No Interaction between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset had no face-to-face contact with no 
evidence of trade or exchange seen in the archaeological record. If this is the case, 
then we might expect to the results outlined in Table 2.3. 
T bl 2 3 E a e .. td h l . I xpec e arc aeo og~ca It fN I t resu so o n eract10n 
Line of Evidence Expectations 
Dates Dates may or may not overlap. 
Site Locations There should be few sites if any that have both Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset traits either at the exact same location or 
within a small geographic region. 
Tools Made Tools will be unique to each group. 
Materials Used Materials used should be unique to each group. 
House Styles House styles should be unique to each group. 
Settlement and There should be clear differences in patterns of land use for each 
Subsistence group. 
Patterns 
The following chapter will present the evidence from the Groswater and Labrador 
Early Dorset sites in Labrador. Using each of the lines of evidence suggested in these 
tables, it will be determined which of these three interaction scenarios the archaeological 
evidence supports for Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset. 
2.7 Chapter Summary 
The primary points of this chapter can be summarized in the following statements: 
1) Before determining whether influence from Early Dorset is observable at one 
Groswater site (St. John's Harbour 5), it is necessary to look at the question of interaction 
first. Influence is a result of interaction, and it needs to be determined whether interaction 
between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset can be demonstrated from the Labrador 
evidence. 
43 
2) Interaction is the result of factors such as mobility, group characteristics and 
environment. It can result in various outcomes that have been described in the literature, 
including trade or exchange of ideas and goods, hostilities or competition, assimilation or 
extinction and avoidance or coexistence 
3) The results of interaction can be challenging to see in the archaeological record, 
especially in an arctic/subarctic context. 
4) However, the results of interaction should be measurable ifyou combine more than 
one line of archaeological evidence, specifically dates, site locations, tools made, 
materials used, house styles and settlement and subsistence patterns. 
5) Using these lines of archaeological evidence, they should combine to show one of 
three possible scenarios that can be tested: 
a) direct interaction 
b) sporadic or passive interaction 
c) no interaction 
CHAPTER3 
DETERMININGTHEGROSWATERANDLABRADOREARLYDORSET 
RELATIONSHIP IN LABRADOR 
This chapter provides the data and analysis for testing the three scenarios laid out 
at the end of Chapter 2. Determining whether interaction is evident between Groswater 
and Labrador Early Dorset in Labrador is achieved by reviewing the site locations, dates 
and house styles and settlement and subsistence patterns of all known Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset sites in Labrador and exploring the artifactual evidence in detail 
for ten of these sites. 
3.1 The Sample 
All Palaeoeskimo sites recorded in Labrador before 2001 were identified and 
reviewed using the Site Record Forms (SRF) submitted by archaeologists to the 
Provincial Archaeology Office (PAO) ofNewfoundland and Labrador (PAO n.d.). In the 
majority of cases the archaeologist's original assessment of the site's cultural designation 
was used; however in a few cases where there has been more recent reevaluations of the 
sites and the collections, the new cultural designation was used (for example, Tuck's 
1975 work listed Early Dorset for sites that were later recognized as Groswater (see Tuck 
and Fitzhugh 1986)). In addition, access to field notes at the Smithsonian Institution 
provided a way to verify cultural affiliations not clearly noted on the SRF at the PAO. 
This was the case particularly for Labrador Early Dorset where often the SRF had a site 
listed merely as Dorset, and where the notes from the Smithsonian identified the site as 
Labrador Early Dorset. In some cases where the initial placement was either questioned 
45 
or described as Early - Middle Dorset the site was placed in the Labrador Early Dorset 
category based on comments in the notes that indicated the site's similarity to other well-
established Labrador Early Dorset sites. 
At the time of this review there are 82 sites with a Groswater designation (see 
Appendix 3). Of these, 15 are listed as possibly Groswater, and a review of their 
collections where possible has not confirmed them as definitely Groswater. 
Consequently, these questionable sites are not included in this analysis. Of the 67 
remaining sites, 22 are listed as only Groswater, while 45 sites are ascribed to Groswater 
and also have one or more other cultural designations. Included in these 67 sites is St. 
John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30. As this site has previously not been fully reported and since 
it may provide specific clues for Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset interaction, a full 
site report is included in Appendix 1. 
At the time of this review there are also 49 sites with a Labrador Early Dorset 
designation (see Appendix 4). Of these, 17 are listed as being possibly Labrador Early 
Dorset and a review of these collections, where possible, failed to provide additional 
evidence to confrrm the identification as definitively Labrador Early Dorset. These 
questionable sites are not included in the following analysis. Of the remaining 32 sites, 
17 are only Labrador Early Dorset, while the other 15 are Labrador Early Dorset along 
with one or more other cultural designations. 
3.2 Establishing Place and Time 
Establishing place and time is essential to evaluating all three interaction 
scenarios. In Chapter 2 it was established that the current literature suggests that 
46 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset were using roughly the same geographic areas from 
the northern tip of Labrador to the Nain region, and that on a broad level they have a 
temporal overlap around 2500 B.P. (Cox 1978; Tuck and Fitzhugh 1986). This at least 
suggests that the possibility of either direct or indirect contact could occur between these 
groups, although it does not undermine the possibility of no interaction. To confirm the 
site location and dates interpretations in the literature and determine what it might mean 
for interactive situations, all Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset site locations and 
available dates were reviewed. 
3.2.1 Site Locations 
Plotting the locations of each of the 67 Groswater sites and 32 Labrador Early 
Dorset sites (Figure 3.1) indicates that the locations are consistent with previously known 
information. Groswater sites are found throughout Labrador from the north in the Saglek 
Bay region to the Straits region in the south and Labrador Early Dorset sites are only 
located from northern Labrador as far south as the Nain region. Figure 3.1 also indicates 
that from the Saglek Bay region in the north to the Nain region both the Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset are present and there are no broad areas along this north-south 
stretch of shared coastline that indicate exclusive use by only one of the groups. 
These site patterns are consistent with the descriptions of land use for both 
groups. Groswater have been described by Fitzhugh as living a modified maritime 
adaptation with an exploitation of marine resources year-round supplemented regularly 
with interior resources such as caribou, fish and birds (Fitzhugh 1972:161). This results 
in settlement patterns "with winter settlements deep in the bays and fall and spring camps 
Labrador 
Map adapted from Plate 2 
McManus & Wood 1991 
47 
Figure 3.1 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
Site Locations in Labrador 
Site Location Legend 
e Groswater 
• Labrador Early Dorset 
A Both 
rJ 
48 
on the inner islands" (Cox 1978:104). 
Labrador Early Dorset are described as having the same pattern as Middle and 
Late Dorset. This pattern indicates that in the fall and winter settlement was on the inner 
islands with "open water sealing from boats and a heavy reliance on the harp seal 
migration in the fall, and sealing at breathing holes and at the sina during the winter" 
(Cox 1978: 112). In the spring Dorset were on the outer islands to hunt seal and may have 
been back on the inner islands for the summer (Cox 1978:112-113). 
Examining the site locations for evidence of interaction indicates a few observed 
patterns. Firstly, there are three sites, (IaCr-1, IbCp-1 and IdCr-9 in Appendices 3 and 4) 
that include both Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset in their site designations. Further, 
in areas such as the Dog Bight region near Nain or the Saglek Bay region in northern 
Labrador there are Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset sites are recorded separately, but 
which are only metres apart. At this point, however, these overlapping site locations do 
not provide enough evidence to indicate interaction, and an examination of their 
collections and context is required to provide further comment. 
A more interesting pattern worth noting emerges in the Nain region where there is 
a higher concentration of islands off the mainland allowing for more site location choices 
between outer and inner zones than is seen along the rest of the coastline north ofNain. 
Looking more closely at the distribution of Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset sites in 
the Nain region (Figure 3.2) indicates that a clear majority ofGroswater sites are only on 
the inner islands, while all of the Labrador Early Dorset sites in this area are on the outer 
regions with very little overlap between the two groups. 
49 
This pattern seems to indicate that there is a clear preference by each group as to 
their site locations on the inner islands versus the outer islands. While it might be argued 
that what we are seeing are seasonal rounds of people that should essentially be 
considered the same, this may also indicate a choice being made by each group to 
consciously avoid the other. Once again though, date and artifact evidence is necessary 
to fully evaluate these options. 
3.2.2 Dates 
There are 18 radiocarbon results for 14 of the Groswater sites and seven 
radiocarbon results from four Labrador Early Dorset used from the sites examined in this 
study (see Appendices 3 and 4). All dates were calibrated using Intercepts Method A 
(Stuiver et al. 1998). Plotting these calibrated results at one sigma (Figure 3.3) indicates 
that there are potentially overlapping dates between 2400-2600 B.P. for sites from 
northern Labrador to the Nain region. In total there are eight dates that fit this range, 
three Groswater dates from three different sites and five Early Dorset dates from three 
different sites. The likelihood that these results may date contemporaneous occupations 
can be assessed through Pairwise testing using a student's t-test. 
The comparison of radiocarbon results using a student's t-test is summarized in 
Table 3 .1. The resulting calculations for every pair of dates tested returned values less 
than 1.96, which indicates that the difference between each of the radiocarbon results 
could be accounted for by statistical error (see Appendix 5). As such, it can be concluded 
that the difference between each of the radiocarbon results is not significant, and that 
these results could represent contemporaneous events. 
10,0 · • +- • ·Treat 1 
• Treat2 
-c 
~ 9,0 
u 
• • ..._. • ·Treat3 
)( Treat 4 
CP 
en 
-c 8,0 0 
:t:l 
I! 
:I 
-.;:, 7,0 E 
'! 
c 6,0 cu CP 
:E 
5,0 
26 31 36 40 44 
Days post-hatch 
Figure 2.19 Mean swim duration of Atlantic cod larvae in different weaning treatments 
over age (days post-hatch) in Experiment ll. Each symbol represents mean of 10 larvae 
observed per treatment per observational day. Vertical bars indicate S.E. See Figure 2.2 
for details of feeding trials. 
50 
51 
Figure 3.3: Calibrated Date Ranges B.P. for Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
Groswater 3000-2500 B.P. Northern Labrador, 
to 2200 B.P. Central LaJ>raluur 
Labrador Early Dorset 2600-2400 B.P. 
Site, Borden Number, Cultural Affiliation, ; ; ; ; ; ; ! ! ; ; ! ! i i i i i i ~ ! ! Reported Date B.P., Reference Number; 
Material; Calibrated Date Range B.P. ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : : : : : : : ~· : ~ : ~ (See appendices 3 and 4) 
Komaktorvik I, IhCw-1 ED 
2515 +/- 70 SI-3896, charcoal 
2385-2745 calibrated 
Komaktorvik 1, IhCw-1 ED 
2495 +/- 70 SI-3897, charcoal 
2362-2740 calibrated 
Komaktorvik I, IbCw-1 ED 
2110 +/- 70 Beta-33049, charcoal and sand 
1954-2295 calibrated 
Nachvak Village, IgCx-3 GW 
-
2410 +/- 60 Sl-4004, charcoal 
2350-2707 calibrated 
Rose Island Site Q, ldCr-6 ED 
2485 +/- 185 SI-4523, charcoal 
2340-2772 calibrated 
Nuasomak 2, HiCl-1 GW + 
2900 +/- 90 Beta 25197, charcoal 
2886-3208 calibrated 
Thalia Point 2, HfCi-2 GW ~ 2540 +/- 160 GSC-1381, charcoal 2348-2762 calibrated 
St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 GW 111111 2190 +/- 70 Sl-4824, charcoal 2075-2327 calibrated 
St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 GW 
-
2540 +/- 75 Sl-4825, charcoal 
2474-2750 calibrated 
St. John's Island I, HeCf-2 GW 
2645 +/- 65 SI-2990, charcoal 
2744-2782 calibrated 
Dog Islaod West Spur L5, HdCh-7 ED 
2680 +/- 70 SI-2978, charcoal -~ -
2749-2849 calibrated 
Dog Bight L3, HdCh-3 ED 
2455 +/- 75 SI-2522, charcoal 
2354-2715 calibrated 
Dog Bight L3, HdCh-3 ED 
2400 +/- 70 SI-2153, charcoal 
2347-2707 calibrated 
Big Island I, HbCi-3 GW 
"" 
2075 +/- 85 SI-5830, charcoal 
1929-2149 calibrated 
! 
: 
Site, Borden NWIIber, Cultural Affiliation, 
Reported Date B.P., Reference Number; 
Material; Calibrated Date Range B.P. 
(See appendiees 3 and 4) 
Solomon Island 2, G!Ce-6 GW 
1930 +/- 95 SI-5831, charcoal and soil 
1737-1989 calibrated 
Postville Pentecostal, GfBw-4 GW 
2275+/- 65 SI-3560, charcoal 
2159-2348 calibrated 
Postville Pentecostal, GfBw-4 GW 
2230 +/- 65 SI-3560, charcoal 
2149-2339 calibrated 
Red Rock Point 2, GeBk-2 GW 
2200 +/- 120 SI-875, charcoal 
2011-2345 calibrated 
East Pompey Island 1, GcBi-12 GW 
2490 +/-60 GSC-1367, charcoal 
2347-2756 calibrated 
East Pompey Island I, GcBi-12 GW 
2620 +/- 70 Beta -52072, charcoal 
2736-2779 calibrated 
Rattlers Bight 1 (Buxhall), GcBi-7 GW 
2720 +/- 125 SI-930, charcoal 
2747-2951 calibrated 
Rattlers Bight 1 (Buxhall), GcBi-7 GW 
2255 1- 55 SI-931, cbrarcoal 
2156-2343 caolibrated 
Ticoralak 5, GbBn-7 GW 
2400 +/- !60 GSC-1314, charcoal 
2210-2739 calibrated 
Ticoralak 3, GbBn-4 GW 
2340 +/- 140 GSC-1217, charcoal 
2156-2708 calibrated 
Ticoralak 2, GbBn-2 GW 
2660 +/- !40GSC-1179; CMC 315, charcoal 
2623-2919 calibrated 
52 
53 
Table 3.1 Pairwise Testing of Eight Dates from Groswater (GW) and Labrador 
Early Dorset (ED) Sites 
Sites and 14C Results ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
'""' '""' 
,-.... t-- ,....... ..,., \0 0'1 
'""' '""' 
,....... 
0'1 ..,., '""' N 
II) 00 ~ ...... II) N ..... 00 ..,., N 00 N II) II) N ..,., 
t;l 0 "<!" ..,., 00 N ,..!. t;l "<!" ...... "<!" t;l t;l t;l t;l rll .._, 
-
u .._, 
~ ~ .._, ..._, rll .._, 
..._, 
..,., 
4) CY C!l II) ..,., .....:! ·~ ~ -~ 
.._, 
~ .....:! :i 1 1 = ! 0 :i > rll ~ 1%1 '1:1 1%1 ~ ~~ ~ a! "' ~ ~ 1i 7il :a "' ~ ...... ~ ] ~ ~ 4) "' ~ ~ 
ii5 
Komak.torvik (SI 3896) ED 
Komak.torivk 1 SI 3897) ED 0.202 
Nachvak Village (SI 4004) GW 1.034 0.813 
Rose Island Site Q (SI 4523) ED 0.733 0.632 0.257 
Thalia Point (GSC 1381) GW 0.372 0.257 0.175 0.327 
St. John's Harbour 5 (SI 4825) GW 0.195 0.389 1.197 0.826 0.481 
Dog Bight L3 (SI 2522) ED 0.633 0.438 0.312 0.4 0 0.801 
Dog Bight L3 (SI-2153) ED 1.16 0.959 0.216 0.151 0.286 1.315 0.487 
see Appendix 3 and 4 for full date information 
Looking specifically at the Nain region which shows a clear separation of site 
locations based on cultural groupings, there are only two Groswater dates from two 
different sites and two Labrador Early Dorset dates from one site to compare. These four 
dates are also indicated in Table 3.1 and thus also show potential for contemporaneity. 
fu conclusion, these dates indicate that Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
likely inhabited the same stretch of coastline during the same time period. fu part this is 
in contrast to previously stated interpretations that implies Labrador Early Dorset were in 
these regions after the Groswater had departed (Cox 1978:106; Tuck and Fitzhugh 
1986:164). 
54 
3.3 The Artifacts 
While the site locations and dates point to the possibility of interaction between 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset, the artifacts should provide the strongest evidence 
for the nature of the interaction if it occurred. 
The artifact analysis includes the examination of collections of the Provincial 
Museum ofNewfoundland and Labrador. In total, 41 Groswater and 18 Labrador Early 
Dorset collections were examined in whole, or in part if some of the artifacts that made 
up the entire collection were unobtainable either being in off-site storage, or located at the 
Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.. The remaining whole collections not fully 
examined were located at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. or were 
unaccounted for. Based upon a general review of the Smithsonian collections at the 
beginning of this study, it was determined that there were no sites of major consequence 
still at the Smithsonian that would add significantly to this portion of the study. Few of 
the Smithsonian's holdings ofGroswater and Labrador Early Dorset sites are from 
excavated sites, and many represent small surface collections with little diagnostic 
information. 
Subsequent to an initial assessment of all collections, it was determined that five 
sites from each culture would be used for a more in-depth comparison. The choice of 
sites was based on the variety and number of artifacts available from the collections and 
the quality of the accompanying information. Sites of various sizes were chosen from 
different locations in an attempt to have a generally representative sample for each culture 
group. Sites in the Nain region were also specifically chosen given the observations 
55 
noted in the site location and date patterns. Further, Groswater sites found south of the 
overlapping coastline region where there are no Labrador Early Dorset sites were 
included to determine if there were artifact differences between the site locations of 
Groswater sites in the north versus the south. If differences are observed, one explanation 
may be because of interaction with the Labrador Early Dorset in the north. The ten sites 
chosen were: 
Groswater 
St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
Big Island, HbCl-3 
Solomon Island 2, GlCe-6 
Postville Pentecostal, G:fBw-4 
Rattler's Bight (Buxhall), GcBi-7 
Labrador Early Dorset 
Peabody Point 2, IiCw-28 
Shuldham Island 14, IdCq-35 
lluvektalik Island 1, HhCk-1 
lluvektalik Island 2, HhCk-2 
Dog Bight L3, HdCh-3 
Where information on artifacts was available in published and unpublished 
reports the data were incorporated as appropriate. Where reports were not available, new 
data were obtained from the collections as required. St. John's Harbour 5 was also 
included as one of the five Groswater sites examined since it was assumed that if this site 
was different from other Groswater sites it would become evident in this comparison. 
3.3.1 Functional Comparison 
Artifacts from each of the sites were broken down into functional tool categories 
and patterns were assessed. Table 3.2 provides a summary for Groswater sites. It 
indicates that for all the Groswater collections microblades are the highest represented 
tool category, followed by bifaces and utilized and ground flakes. While some 
collections did not contain all tool types (e.g. vessels and celts) this may be an indication 
of sample size rather than absence from these sites. Table 3.3 provides a summary for 
Table 3.2: Tool categories represented in Groswater Sites 
Site1 r/.1 r/.1 r/.1 r/.1 r/.1 r/.1 r/.1 ~ r/.1 ~ ~ (!) (!) (!) ~ .g -- ~ (!) a! > 0 0 (!) ~ ~ ] r/.1 ~ 0 tl:l 0 r/.1 ... - ..... ..... - 0 r/.1 (!) :§ ~ t (!) § .g .g > ~ 00 ~ "C 1 tl:l - .~ :§ - ~ § =E ..... ::s r/.1 
~ 
'8 
Rattler's Bight 4 9 43 7 2 299 7 6 46 1 0 17 441 
(Buxhall) 
GcBi-7 1% 2% 10% 2% 1% 68% 1.5% 1.5% 10% 0% 0% 4% 100% 
Postville Pentecostal 38 2 156 57 31 880 38 35 473 0 2 18 1730 
GfBw-4 
2% 0% 9% 3% 2% 51% 2% 2% 27% 0% 0% 1% 99% 
Solomon Island 2 1 0 2 0 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 1 26 
GlCe-6 
4% 0% 8% 0% 0% 76% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 4% 100% 
Big Island 1 0 9 1 0 15 0 1 1 0 1 1 30 
HbCl-3 
3% 0% 30% 3% 0% 50% 0% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 98% 
St. John's Harbour 5 24 5 51 25 13 268 12 7 54 5 0 12 476 
HeCi-30 
5% 1% 11% 5% 3% 56% 2.5% 1.5% 11% 1% 0% 3% 100% 
Average 0/o of all sites 99.5 
3% 0.5% 13.5 2.5% 1% 60% 1% 3.5% 12% 0% 0.5% 3% %1 
% 100% 
2Postville Pentecostal: numbers based on Lormg and Cox 1986; Lormg and Cox hst deb1tage but provtde only percentages- not numbers; although Lormg and Cox 
state that there were 1966 Groswater artifacts, only 1730 are sufficiently reported on in their artifact descriptions and hence is what is reported on here; The renmining 
site numbers are based on collection reviews. 
Table 3.3: Tool categories represented in Labrador Early Dorset Sites 
Site2 "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' ~ -a ] ~ Q) ~ - Q) ~ ~ "' ;:::: "' 0 0 -g ]~ Q) 5 £ ~ ~ g. s ~ 0 ..... - 0 .g j:Cl !J Q) ..0 
.g ~ 0 Q) &j 00 ~ !J 
= 
"0"0 
1 ~ i ~ .~ § ¢1 I 13 0 ] . .§< ::l ~ 
a:\ 
·s 
"' ~
"' 
"' ~ 
Dog Bight 13 0 16 5 10 288 7 46 127 1 4 14 531 
L3 
HdCh-3 2.5% 0% 3% 1% 2% 54% 1.5% 8.5% 24% 0% 1% 2.5% 100% 
Iluvektalik 53 14 60 5 20 615 5 101 197 1 29 2 1104 
Island 1 
HhCk-1 5% 1.5% 5% 0.5% 2% 56% 0.5% 9% 18% 0% 2.5% 0% 100% 
Iluvektalik 0 0 9 1 3 36 0 2 5 1 2 1 60 
Island 2 
HhCk-2 0% 0% 15% 2% 5% 60% 0% 3% 8% 2% 3% 2% 100% 
Shuldham 8 1 46 2 1 155 0 70 6 0 2 28 319 
Island 14 
IdCq-35 2.5% 0.25% 14% 0.5% 0.25% 49% 0% 22% 2% 0% 0.5% 9% 100% 
Peabody 4 3 11 2 3 41 0 2 7 0 1 4 78 
Point 2 
IiCw-28 5% 4% 14% 2.5% 4% 53% 0% 2.5% 9% 0% 1% 5% 100% 
Average% 3% 1% 10% 1.5% 3% 54% 0.5% 9% 12% 0.5% 1.5% 4% 100% 
of all sites 
2 All site numbers are based on collection reviews. 
58 
Labrador Early Dorset sites and shows a similar pattern of tool use among the Labrador 
Early Dorset with microblades being the highest represented tool category, followed by 
utilized and grmmd flakes, and then bifaces. 
By comparing the artifacts at Groswater sites to the Labrador Early Dorset sites 
(Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4), it can be seen that, in general, the Groswater and Labrador 
Early Dorset are using similar types of artifacts. In addition, the percentage of each tool 
type within the assemblages is comparable. For example, both groups have microblades 
at over 50% of the assemblages, 12% of the assemblages are utilized and ground flakes 
and 3% of the assemblages are endblades. Differences include the presence of ovate side 
blades on Groswater sites and not Labrador Early Dorset sites, and tip-flute spalls (which 
are a product of the endblade style in Labrador Early Dorset rather than a tool category) 
on Labrador Early Dorset sites. 
What these patterns in part indicate is that the artifacts we see in Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset are not indicative of different functions either between the groups 
or even largely within the groups. Looking at where the sites were located to see if any 
seasonal differences could be observed within each group also showed that each group 
maintained the same toolkit composition despite the site location on the landscape. Both 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset have a tool kit that is similar in composition, 
except for the presence or absence of ovate side blades and tip-flute spalls. This 
similarity is likely explained as being a result of a shared Paleoeskimo ancestry in which 
like activities are taking place in both groups within the same geographic regions. 
Table 3.4 Comparison of Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset Tools 
Group "' "' "' b "' "' "' "' "' "' "' ~ ~ Q) ~ Q) - Q) Q) .g ~ ~ "' G)~ u 0 ~ 5 i ~ §< .9 t'<S g. "' E-< - - u u "' :g t> ,D ~ !+=I Q) ~ Q) § .g Q) > ~ 00 ~ t'<S = 1 1 ~ - ...... § 00 !+=I I .S< 
~ ~ E-< ] 
'"d 
~ 
!B 
::> 
Groswater 3% 0.5% 13.5% 2.5% 1% 60% 1% 3.5% 0% 12% 0% 0.5% 3% 100 
% 
Labrador Early 3% 1% 10% 1.5% 3% 54% 0.5% 0% 9% 12% 0.5% 1.5% 4% 100 
Dorset 
% 
60 
Figure 3.4: Comparison of Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset tools 
Groswater and labrador Early Dorset Tool Categories 
0 
rn rn rn ~ - .c rn rn ~ rn ~ rn ,_ Q) Q) Q) :0 E Q) Q) ~ Q) Q) "0 > 0 Q) ,_ "0 ~ ..c m ·c: ~ a. 0 m rn -~ 0 m rn 0 :0 ~ :c :0 u::: Q) 
"0 0 .c Q) > 
c rn E "0 ...... Q) 
"iii ::J 
Tool Types •Groswater 
•l...abrador Early Dorset 
61 
As for indicators of interaction, there do not appear to be any anomalus patterns 
that show up in tool kit compositions in these ten sites. Further the composition of 
Groswater toolkits in overlapping regions with Labrador Early Dorset show no noticeable 
difference to those in the regions south ofNain. Had there been interaction, differences 
may have been observed between these geographic regions. 
3.3.2 Stylistic comparison 
Apart from functional comparisons, it might be expected that the stylistic 
attributes of tools may provide a stronger indication of interaction between two groups. 
The culturally diagnostic artifacts chosen for a stylistic review between Groswater 
and Labrador Early Dorset are endblades, knives and bifaces, scrapers and burin-like 
tools. Each of these artifact classes contains unique stylistic attributes for both cultural 
groups, and as such, are often used as cultural indicators. Artifacts such as microblades 
and utilized flakes are not used in this comparison as the differences are not as obvious, 
and could be a result of a shared Palaeoeskimo ancestry or a result of a manufacturing 
process that allows for little stylistic variability. 
Beginning with an examination of the endblades, knives and bifaces, it can be 
observed in Figures 3.5 to 3.8, that there are similar patterns found within the all of the 
five Groswater sites examined. The artifacts found at Rattlers Bight (Figure 3.5 a-q), 
Solomon Island (Figure 3.5 r-s) and Cape Little (Figure 3.5 t-y) are generally smaller than 
the ones from Postville Pentecostal (Figure 3.6 a-u and Figure 3.7 a-m). This may be an 
indication of geographic location or temporal placement of these sites. Despite the size 
differences between the artifacts in the individual site collections there are still common 
Figure 3.5 
Groswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from Rattler's Bight 
Solomon Island 2 and Big Island 
a b c d 
h 
m n 
r s 
v w 
Legend 
a-q Rattler's Bight, GcBi-7 (all examples) 
r-s Solomon Island 2, GICe-6 (all examples) 
t-y Big Island, HbCI-3 (all examples) 
e f g 
k 
0 p 
t u 
X y 
62 
q 
Figure 3.6 
Sample of Groswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from 
Postville Pentecostal, GfBw-4 
a b c d e f 
k m n 
p q s t 
63 
g h 
0 
u 
Figure 3.7 
Sample of Groswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from 
Postville Pentecostat GfBw-4 
a b c 
d e f 
h 
k m 
0 2 3 4 5cm 
64 
g 
Figure 3.8 
Sample of Groswater Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from 
St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a b c d e 
h 
• 0 p s t 
w X y z aa 
cc dd ee 
65 
f g 
m n 
u v 
bb 
gg 
66 
elements such as box-based points and asymmetric bifaces. Many of the common 
elements are present in at least two or more of the sites, for example the triangular shaped 
endblades from St. John's Harbour 5 (Figure 3.8 h-j) are similar to those from Postville 
Pentecostal (Figure 3.61-n). 
In a general comparison of endblades, knives and bifaces for the Labrador Early 
Dorset sites (Figures 3.9 and 3.10) similarities between all sites are also observed. 
Labrador Early Dorset endblades tend to be tip-fluted and long, thin and triangular in 
shape. Biface and knife bases range from single to multiple notched forms and are 
generally symmetrical in shape. 
Comparing Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset tool styles illustrates the unique 
characteristics of each. Groswater endblades are characterised by box-bases, triangular 
shape and asymmetric knives are side notched. The Labrador Early Dorset endblades are 
tip-fluted, with straight to slightly concave bases and knives and bifaces are symmetric 
and multi-notched. While the triangular shaped endblades in the Groswater collections 
(e.g. Figure 3.61-n and Figure 3.8 h-j) are similar in shape to those in the Labrador Early 
Dorset collections (Figure 3.10 h-k) the latter are tip-fluted. Notching is present on 
specimens in both groups, but is wider among the Groswater specimens, and in some 
cases, multiple on Labrador Early Dorset tools. 
Examining the scrapers from both groups indicates that the Groswater collections 
(Figure 3.11) contain a wide variety of shapes. The most characteristic is the eared-type 
scraper seen throughout the sites (e.g. Figure 3.11 e,j-q, s, w-ee). There are also a variety 
of triangular shaped and rectangular shaped scrapers throughout. In general, however, the 
Figure 3.9 
Labrador Early Dorset Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from 
Dog Bight L3, Peabody Point 2 and Shuldham Island 14 
a b c 
h 
n 0 p 
t u 
Legend 
a-m Dog Bight L3, HdCh-3 (all examples) 
n-s Peabody Point 2, liCw-28 (all examples) 
v 
t-x Shuldham Island 14, ldCq-35 (all examples) 
d e 
k 
q 
w 
67 
f g 
m 
s 
X 
Figure 3.10 
Labrador Early Dorset Endblades, Knives and Bifaces from 
llluvektalik 1 and 2 
a b c d e f 
k m n 
p q s 
u v w X 
g 
z a a bb cc 
Legend 
a-y llluvektalik 1, HhCk-1 (all examples) 
z-cc llluvektalik 2, HhCk-2 (all examples) 
68 
h 
0 
t 
y 
Figure 3.11 
Groswater Scrapers from Rattler's Bight, PosMIIe Pentecostal, 
Big Island and St. John's Harbour 5 
a c 
t g 
h 
k m 
v w X y 
bb cc ee 
Legend 
a-e Rattler's Bight GcBi-7 (all examples) 
f-t PosMIIe Pentecostal, GfBw-4 (representative sample) 
u Big Island, HbCI-3 (only example) 
v-gg St. John's Harbour 5 (representative sample) 
d e 
n 0 
z a a 
• ff gg 
69 
70 
Groswater scrapers tend to be square to rectangular in form. In contrast, the scrapers 
found in the Labrador Early Dorset sites (Figure 3.12) tend to have a longer, more 
triangular shape, with more rounded working ends, or a slight flaring. Overall each group 
has scrapers characteristically unique to it and points to separate styles. 
The burin-like-tools, also exhibit unique characteristics within each group. 
Groswater burin-like-tools (Figure 3.13) tend to be manufactured using a chipping and 
grinding technique. They often appear to have been manufactured utilizing what were 
formerly bifaces, knives or endblades (e.g. Figure 3.13 d-i, o-q). 
The burin-like-tools represented in the Labrador Early Dorset collections (Figure 
3.14) tend to be mainly fully ground and are longer, more narrow and rectangular in 
shape in comparison to the Groswater burin-like-tools. 
What the comparison of endblades, knives and bifaces, scrapers and burin-like 
tools within and between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset indicates is that each 
group maintained unique stylistic choices for these tools. For the Groswater, there once 
again do not appear to be too many differences from those sites in the north and the south 
with the exception of size. More importantly in terms of identifying interaction through 
the artifact styles, there does not appear to be any obvious mixing of styles between the 
groups, including in the Nain region. If interaction is taking place, it is not resulting in an 
exchange of stylistic ideas. 
Figure 3.12 
Labrador Early Dorset Scrapers from Dog Bight L2, 
llluvektalik l and 2, Peabody Point 2 and Shuldham Island 14 
a b 
e 
Legend 
a-d Dog Bight L3, HdCh-3 (all examples) 
e-i llluvektalik 1 , HhCk-1 (all examples) 
j llluvektalik 2, HhCk-2 (only example) 
k 
k Peabody Point 2, liCw-28 (only example) 
g 
I Shuldham Island 14, ldCq-35 (only example) 
c d 
h 
71 
Figure 3.13 
Groswater Burin-like-tools from Rattler's Bight, PosMIIe Pentecostal 
and St. John's Harbour 5 
• a b 
d e f g 
k m n 
s t u 
X y z aa 
Legend 
a-c Rattler's Bight GcBi-7 (all examples) 
d-n Postville Pentecostal, GfBw-4 (representative sample) 
o-aa Big Island, HbCI-3 (only example) 
v-gg St. John's Harbour 5 (representative sample) 
~ ' 
c 
h 
0 p q 
v w 
t 
bb cc dd 
72 
Figure 3.14 
Labrador Early Dorset Burin-like-tools from Dog Bight L3, 
llluvektalik 1 and 2 and Peabody Point 2 
a 
p 
b c 
k 
q s 
X y z 
Legend 
a-h Dog Bight L3, HdCh-3 (all examples) 
i-w llluvektalik 1 , HhCk-1 (all examples) 
x-z llluvektalik 2, HhCk-2 (all examples) 
d 
t 
aa-bb Peabody Point 2, liCw-28 (all examples) 
e 
m 
u 
aa 
73 
I' f g h 
n 0 
v w 
l 
bb 
74 
3.3.3 Lithic Material Use 
Evidence of interaction may also be indicated in a comparison oflithic raw 
material use in each cultural group. The review of lithic raw material use in both 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset is of particular interest as Fitzhugh indicated that 
the lithic raw material use at St. John's Harbour 5 in part led him to conclude that it was a 
site undergoing influence from Labrador Early Dorset (Fitzhugh 1981:42-43). Tables 3.5 
and 3.6 show the distribution of lithic materials between the sites for both groups. 
As these tables indicate, lithic raw material use is similar among the Groswater 
sites, as it is among the Labrador Early Dorset sites. However, a comparison of the two 
groups shows distinct preferences for certain materials. The primary difference between 
the two groups, as shown in Table 3.7 andFigure 3.15, is that the Groswater use 
significantly higher proportions of chert than Labrador Early Dorset who used Ramah 
almost exclusively. In addition, Labrador Early Dorset used nephrite, primarily for their 
burin-like-tools, while the Groswater used very little and in few finished artifacts. 
Once again the geographic location of the Groswater sites does not appear to 
affect the choice of raw material. Had interaction been occurring it might be expected to 
show up in a difference of material choice in the overlapping areas. Either there would be 
an increase in Ramah for northern Groswater sites, or an increase in chert in the Labrador 
Early Dorset sites, and possibly more so in the Nain region. Accessibility to the sources 
in the common areas does not appear to be an issue as both are utilizing the same types of 
materials, just in differing amounts. Further, as the working properties of both Ramah 
and chert are generally similar, the difference in preferred material appears to point to 
cultural choices. 
75 
Table 3.5: Lithic Materials used on Five Labrador Groswater Sites 
Site 
-a i ~"i 
·I e 
(!) ~ § ~ ~ ! 0 ] ~ .9 "' ~ aS ~ ~ 0' :El 0 
0 00 
00 
Rattler's Bight 160 196 80 2 0 3 0 0 441 
(Buxhall) 
GcBi-7 36% 44% 18% 0.5% 0% 1% 0% 0% 99.5% 
Postville 638 919 160 2 0 0 2 9 1730 
Pentecostal2 
G:tBw-4 37% 53% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 100% 
Solomon Island 7 16 1 0 0 2 0 0 26 
2 
GlCe-6 27% 61% 4% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 100% 
Big Island 10 12 7 0 0 0 1 0 30 
HbCl-3 
33% 40% 23% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 99% 
St. John's 141 256 57 2 17 2 0 1 476 
Harbour 5 
HeCi-30 30% 54% 12% 0.5% 3% 0.5% 0% 0% 100% 
average % for all 33% 50% 13% 0.5% 0.5% 2% 1% 0% 100% 
5 sites 
2Postville Pentecostal: numbers based on Loring and Cox 1986 
* 1966 artifacts were noted for Postville Pentecostal (Loring and Cox 1986:71), however data was only presented for 1289 artifacts. 
In the general description it is noted that there is 56% chert, 35% Ramah, 7% Quartz Crystal, 2% Slate and 1% of remaining material 
including quartz, soapstone, nephrite, asbestos, sandstone, and exotic chert. There is insufficient detail to determine the total number 
of artifacts for each material. 
Table 3.6: Lithic Materials used on Five Labrador Early Dorset Sites 
Site .a ] 1! ·; ] Cl) I ~ ";j ~ -u Cl.l l 1;l g. Cl :E! 0 () Cl.l 
Cl.l 
DogBightL3 325 60 68 12 18 44 4 0 
HdCh-3 
61% 11% 13% 2% 4% 8% 1% 0% 
Iluvektalik Island 1 944 14 29 0 27 59 29 0 
HhCk-1 
86% 1% 2.5% 0% 2.5% 5.5% 2.5% 0% 
Iluvektalik Island 2 41 5 3 0 5 4 2 0 
HhCk-2 
69% 8% 5% 0% 8% 7% 3% 0% 
Shuldham Island 14 277 2 2 0 2 6 30 0 
IdCq-35 
87% 0.5% 0.5% 0% 0.5% 2% 9.5% 0% 
Peabody Point 2 65 3 2 0 2 1 5 0 
IiCw-28 
83% 4% 3% 0% 3% 1% 6% 0% 
Average % for all 5 77% 5% 5% 0.5% 3.5% 4.5% 4.5% 0% 
sites 
Table 3.7 Comparison of Raw Material Use from Five Groswater and Five 
Labrador Early Dorset Sites 
Site i ] ~~ Cl) ~ Cl) ~ ~ ~ ·15 ] ";j 0 @ -u ~ ~ til CIU fr ~ 
Cl z :E! 0 () Cl.l 
Cl.l 
average % for 5 33% 50% 13% 0.5% 0.5% 2% 1% 0% 
Groswater sites 
Average % for 5 77% 5% 5% 0.5% 3.5% 4.5% 4.5% 0% 
Labrador Early 
Dorset sites 
76 
~ 
E-< 
531 
100% 
1102 
100% 
60 
100% 
319 
100% 
78 
100% 
100% 
~ 
E-< 
100% 
100% 
Figure 3.15: Comparison of Raw Material Use from Five Groswater and Five 
Labrador Early Dorset Sites 
Comparison on Groswater and labrador Early Dorset 
Material Use 
70 
& 60 
J! 
c 
(I) 50 ~ (I) 
'; 40 
C) 
t! 
~ 30 
20 
10 
0 
t:: (I) 
.s::. (.,) 
.s::. 
cu 
E 
~ 
t:: (I) 
.s::. (.) 
Materials 
~ 
·.:: 
.s::. 
a. (I) 
z 
(I) 
s::: 
i 
cu 
0 
CJ) 
1111 Groswater 
.... 
(I) 
.s 
0 
1111 Labrador Early Dorset 
77 
78 
3.4 House Styles 
As noted in Chapter 2, detailed information on house styles for both groups is 
limited. The published information reports that the Postville Pentecostal site (Gffiw-4) 
provides the best evidence for Groswater habitation features in Labrador. The ten 
features found at Postville Pentecostal include mid-passage or axial hearth features made 
of stone slabs (Loring and Cox 1986:68-69). Labrador Early Dorset structural 
information has been reported from Illuvektalik 1 (Hh.Ck-1 ), where an apparent winter 
dwelling is located (Cox 1978:107), and Komaktorvik (Ih.Cw-1) where three houses are 
reported (Cox 2002:4). 
In reviewing the SRF during this study several other features and houses 
previously not published were noted, including the house feature reported at St. John's 
Harbour 5 (Appendix 1 ). Appendix 3 indicates that there are 25 Groswater sites with 
reported features. Of these, 16 sites have clear or possible house structures, five with 
only hearths, one site that has a small arrangement of rocks with an unclear function and 
two sites with features but with problematic cultural associations. As indicated in 
Appendix 4 there are 28 Labrador Early Dorset sites with reported features. Of these, 24 
indicate clear or possible house features, two have only hearths, one has a line of boulders 
with an unclear function, and one contains a midden. 
The Groswater sites are generally described as only having one or two structures, 
except for Postville Pentecostal which has four, often with axial features or parallel rows 
of slabs, and paving stones. The Labrador Early Dorset sites are also reported as having 
some with mid-passage features, some without, and some with the presence of paving 
79 
stones. These observations. are in contrast with Cox (1978) who indicated that Labrador 
Early Dorset had no mid-passage features. 
In general both groups have a variety of features associated with their sites. Both 
groups have some overlaps in traits such as some mid-passage features, and house sizes 
and numbers that indicate small group sizes. However, there is such variability in how 
the houses are described that it is hard to pinpoint characteristics that are so clearly 
Groswater or Labrador Early Dorset that their presence in the other group's locations 
would indicate interaction. Further, the similarities between the house features are likely 
more indicative of a shared common Palaeoeskimo ancestry rather than a result of 
interaction. 
3.5 Anomalies 
While the above information tends to point to differences in the material culture 
between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset sites and collections there are anomalies 
that require further discussion. 
Regarding the sites where Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset are indicated as 
at the same location, it should be noted that often these sites are multi-component which 
makes it difficult to separate all of the materials into distinct cultural groups. In the 
Saglek Bay region an examination of the plates for these sites (Tuck 1975:211-265) 
indicates that there are several that have both Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset style 
artifacts, such as Rose Island E, W, X, Y and Bear Island. However the majority of these 
collections are also quite large and their stratigraphy makes it difficult to separate the 
contexts for the artifacts. A more thorough re-examination of these collections is 
required to determine whether there were clear and separate uses of the sites by each 
group, or whether these sites are an indication of simultaneous site occupation by both 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset. 
80 
The Early Dorset site Peabody Point 2 has two artifacts that appear to be 
Groswater in form. One endblade (Figure 3.9 s) is box-based in style, with no tip-fluting 
and is made from Ramah chert. The second artifact, a scraper (Figure 3.12 k) is a small 
version of the flared-eared type scraper is similar in style to those found on the Groswater 
sites (e.g. Figure 3.11 e, cc and ft); however is made from quartz crystal. 
With both of these artifacts, it appears that they might indicate a possible 
Groswater connection on a site previously described only as Labrador Early Dorset. 
Given that there are only two artifacts at Peabody Point 2, however, they could just as 
easily be a result of site reuse, or scavenging from other sites by the Labrador Early 
Dorset. Without clearer information on their contexts, this cannot be fully confirmed. 
The burin-like-tool preform found at St. John's Harbour 5 (Figure 3.13 aa) is very 
similar in shape to those located on Labrador Early Dorset sites (e.g. Figure 3.14 a, b, m-
o ). However, as it is made of slate rather than nephrite, this shape on a Groswater site 
could be explained as a result of the material's working properties, just as easily as the 
result of interaction with Labrador Early Dorset. 
At the St. John's Harbour 5 site, the use of nephrite was noticed by Fitzhugh 
(1980a) as unusual for Groswater sites for burin-like-tools. Reviewing the site collection, 
however, indicates that nephrite is not used for burin-like-tools, but rather appears only in 
the form of ground flakes and one ground nephrite knife. A review of all the other 
81 
Groswater collections demonstrates that in general there is little nephrite use, but when it 
does occur it is also as ground flakes. While St. John's Harbour 5 does have slightly 
more nephrite, the use of it is not in keeping with its use at Labrador Early Dorset sites 
which is in the form ofburin-like-tools. 
A nephrite knife found at St. John's Harbour 5 (Figure 3.16 a) initially appeared 
to be unique since there was no equivalent in the four other Groswater sites examined 
above. However, a review of all other Groswater sites produced two more examples that 
are similar in form. One of these is from Rose Island, Site W (Figure 3.16 b) and the 
other is from Thalia Point (Figure 3.16 c). Both of these sites are multicomponent sites 
with a confirmed Groswater component (see Appendix 3). A third example was found by 
Lisa Rankin in 2001 at the Porcupine Strand 8 site (FkBg-15) located in the Sandwich 
Bay region in southern Labrador (Rankin, personal communication 2002). 
In comparison, nephrite use on Labrador Early Dorset sites is seen in Figure 3.16 
d which shows a celt found at lluvektalik 1. Figure 3.16 f is an example of a ground 
nephrite tip from Shuldham Island 14 that is similar in shape and style to a ground slate 
artifact (Figure 3.16 e) found at the Labrador Early Dorset site of Peabody Point 2. While 
the nephrite knife found at St. John's Harbour 5 may have initially been considered as an 
example of something possibly originating with the Labrador Early Dorset, the presence 
of this form at other Groswater sites, and not at any of the Labrador Early Dorset sites 
examined appears to suggest this is something unique to Groswater. Further, the form, if 
not the material and method of manufacturing, is consistent with other asymmetric knives 
found on Groswater sites (e.g. Figure 3.7 e). 
Figure 3.16 
A Selection of Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset 
Ground Nephrite and Slate Artifacts from Labrador 
a b c 
e f 
d 
Legend 
a-c Groswater 
d-f Labrador Early Dorset 
82 
3.6 Chapter Summary 
The conclusions that can be drawn from this chapter are as follows: 
1) As demonstrated in a review of site locations and dates, the possibility exists that 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset distribution overlapped during the same time 
period. 
83 
2) However, within these regions, and especially evidenced in the Nain region, there 
appears to be a difference in specific site location selection, with Groswater largely on the 
inner islands and Dorset on the outer islands. 
3) Both Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset have similar functional composition in 
their tool kits. A review of collections based on their site locations also eliminated the 
possibility that the differences were attributed to only one culture using different toolkits 
at different times of the year. With all sites having similar tool kit compositions it would 
suggest sites were used in similar manners by both groups despite their location. 
4) While both Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset have similar functional tool kits, 
they utilize stylistically very different artifacts. Each group appears to maintain relatively 
separate identities as evidenced in their tool styles. 
5) The material composition of the tool kits points to a preference of materials unique to 
each group. In addition, there are no perceived changes in the material use patterns in 
areas where both groups overlap suggesting little impact on each other's material use 
patterns. 
6) House style information and details for both Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset is 
generally limited, but they are not distinctive enough between the groups to suggest 
84 
anything other than a shared Paleoeskimo ancestry. 
7) Most anomalies noted appear to either be a result of a shared Paleoeskimo ancestry or 
have been shown not to be anomalous at all. Further, while some site locations may 
indicate a possible closer relationship between Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset, the 
complexities of these locations require a more detailed analysis than could be conducted 
here to determine the true nature of these sites. 
8) St. John's Harbour 5 does not stand out as unique from the other Groswater sites 
examined. 
9) Overall, Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset appear to be separate groups. There is 
no evidence in the artifacts, lithic preferences or dwelling forms to suggest interaction. 
However, site locations may provide information on the nature of a type of interaction to 
be discussed further in the following chapter. 
CHAPTER4 
CONCLUSIONS 
Based on the three scenarios presented in Chapter 2 and the results from Chapter 
3, the scenario that appears best to fit Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset data is that of 
indirect or passive interaction. A synopsis of the evidence for indirect or passive 
interaction is presented in Table 4.1. 
Table 4.1: Evidence for Indirect or Passive Interaction between Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset in Labrador 
Line of Evidence Observations 
Dates Some dates overlap and a student's t-test demonstrates that 
there is potential that these dates are contemporaneous. 
Site Locations Sites are in the same geographic area from the Saglek Bay 
region to the Nain region. 
Lithic Materials Used Throughout all of their sites, the Groswater and Labrador 
Early Dorset used consistent lithic material unique to each. 
Materials do not appear to change in the areas of overlap -
Groswater continue to use both colourful cherts and Ramah, 
and Labrador Early Dorset continue to use Ramah chert 
almost exclusively. 
Tools Throughout all of their sites, the Groswater and Labrador 
Early Dorset used tools largely stylistically unique to each. 
House Styles A variety of house styles with some overlapping features 
that could be could be attributable to a common 
Palaeoeskimo ancestry. 
Settlement and While sites are in the same geographic regions, in some 
Subsistence patterns areas, such as Nain, there appears to be a clear separation in 
site location choice within the geographic region. Generally 
Groswater tend to be on the inner islands while Labrador 
Early Dorset are on the outer islands during the same time 
period. 
86 
The dates and site locations overlap suggesting that there was the possibility for 
face-to-face interaction. Contrary to previous statements in the literature that suggested 
that Groswater, while surviving on the central and south coasts, was replaced by the 
Dorset in the north (Cox 1978:106; Tuck and Fitzhugh 1986:164), the analysis of dates 
and site locations suggests that rather than replacement there was potential coexistence. 
Despite this potential coexistence, there appears to have been little change in 
either the Groswater or Labrador Early Dorset material culture in this area, or in other 
areas where both groups are in close proximity such as the Dog Bight region near Nain or 
the Saglek Bay region in northern Labrador. Had there been a level of interaction that 
resulted in cultural changes in either group, one might expect to see these changes 
expressed in the material culture and visible archaeologically. It is noted that the 
Groswater sites found in the southern areas of Labrador, outside the Labrador Early 
Dorset range, are comparable to collections from geographic regions where both groups 
are present. Had Labrador Early Dorset influenced Groswater culture, differences in the 
material culture within the region where they co-exist should be different than the 
southern regions where there are no Labrador Early Dorset sites. Further, lithic material 
use within both cultures retains similar patterns throughout the Labrador sites, with 
Labrador Early Dorset using Ramah almost exclusively and Groswater predominantly 
utilizing a mix of fine-grained cherts and Ramah. As Groswater were already utilizing 
Ramah in their toolkits throughout Labrador, an increase in Ramah use in the northerly 
sites is more likely a result of proximity to the source rather than influence of Labrador 
Early Dorset. Had there been greater interaction, it may have shown itself in an increase 
87 
in fine-grained materials in Labrador Early Dorset in the overlapping Groswater regions. 
Microblades, microblade cores, flakes and some bifaces were arguably quite 
similar between the groups, but as with the makeup of the tool kits themselves, the style 
of these types of tools are likely more correctly interpreted as being the result of a shared 
Palaeoeskimo ancestry than being a result of direct contact/influence among the groups. 
These tools are made the same way throughout both groups with little noticeable change 
in style to indicate a period of change when the groups may have overlapped. 
There is a sizeable amount of unpublished information on Groswater and 
Labrador Early Dorset houses. The information added from SRF for both groups 
suggests some similarities in house forms, with some mid-passage features, middens and 
flat paving stones appearing in both groups. This is likely to be the result of shared 
Palaeoeskimo ancestry. 
The more detailed examination of site locations suggested that while the groups 
occupied the same geographic region in general, both groups maintained cultural 
boundaries within these geographic regions. More particularly Groswater, while utilizing 
some of the more outer coastal areas, also utilized some inner island locations. Labrador 
Early Dorset meanwhile, maintained a strong pattern of outer coastal land use only. 
This geographic distribution could suggest two possible explanations: 1) that what 
we are really seeing is site placement based on the seasonal rounds of what is actually the 
same group of people, or that 2) there is a conscious decision on the part of the each 
group to maintain a separation of space within the same region from the other. As it 
was demonstrated in Chapter 3 that we are looking at two separate groups based on tool 
kit composition, stylistic differences and raw material use, then it is the second option 
that appears to be the scenario we are dealing with in the relationship of Groswater to 
Labrador Early Dorset. 
88 
There were a few anomalies in the collections that might be interpreted to 
interaction, but they tended to be seen in isolated finds of artifacts in the collections. In 
all cases where there was an isolated find in the other's group, the artifact maintained 
clear characteristics of the originating culture and could have just as easily been explained 
by scavenging of sites, rather than direct interaction. The sites in the Saglek region (Tuck 
1975), may warrant further examination given that these sites were analyzed early in the 
understanding ofPalaeoeskimo groups in Newfoundland and Labrador and changes in 
our understanding of these sites have been already referred to in the literature (Tuck and 
Fitzhugh 1986). As this was another of the regions singled out for showing site 
placement overlap, and as the artifacts illustrated in Tuck (1975) suggest a mixing of 
artifacts from each group throughout, the sites here may offer further insight into 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset relationships. 
The St. John's Harbour 5 site itself appears to be firmly rooted in a Groswater 
tradition. As for influence from Labrador Early Dorset occurring at this site, the available 
evidence does not support this hypothesis. The materials used and the styles of the 
artifact are consistent with other Groswater sites, with few attributes that are usually 
attributable to Labrador Early Dorset. While nephrite use, which is more often associated 
with Labrador Early Dorset collections, is slightly higher at St. John's Harbour 5, most of 
the nephrite use was seen in ground flakes. The one finished artifact, a nephrite ground 
89 
knife, was shown to be similar to three other examples, all from Groswater sites, 
indicating that this is in fact a Groswater trait. Further, the general chert use at this site 
/ 
did not appear to be different from other Groswater sites in any other way. 
The pattern of separate locations at potentially the same time fits into options for 
hunter-gatherer groups discussed in Chapter 2. If interaction occurred in the form of 
partitioning the land, then this would mimic the pattern suggested by Renouf (2003) for 
Recent Indians and Dorset populations in northeastern Newfoundland. That is, " ... both 
culture groups were situating their sites with respect to each other. This does not mean 
avoidance or hostility but an accommodation to the other culture's camps and settlements 
- passively sharing the landscape at the same time as actively sharing resources and 
information" (Renouf 2003:1 0). As there does not appear to be any evidence of conflict 
noted in the collections through the presence of human remains indicating trauma, and 
since the groups do not show changes in their material culture because of interactions, 
then a sharing of land and passive interaction is the more likely conclusion to explain the 
spatial patterns observed. 
The pattern observed for Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset may also be 
similar to ones observed in the Arctic, where there are small groups utilizing a vast area 
with little or no contact at all. For example McGhee suggested that for Dorset and Thule 
"A third scenerio, comprising sporadic and ephemeral contact over a period of 
generations, but resulting in no significant transfer of knowledge or technology between 
the two groups, would seem to be more consistent with the present archaeological 
evidence as well as with our reconstructions of the societies and cultures of the people 
90 
involved" (McGhee 1997:212). 
It could be argued that even though potential contemporaneity in dates was 
demonstrated, the limited number of dates and the time range and the vastness of the 
geography may mean these groups were completely unaware of each other and no 
interaction ever took place. Further, under this scenario, the site placements observed for 
Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset are merely reflections of individual cultural 
preference in land use, and that there is consideration of other groups in the site location 
selection. 
Bearing these potential conclusions in mind, it can still be demonstrated that even 
if Groswater and Labrador Early Dorset lived in the same geographic region, presumably 
availing of the same resomces around the same period in time, they still utilized 
stylistically different toolkits, raw material use and site locations. All indications are that 
while they may have been aware of each other and modified some of their land use 
patterns accordingly, a separation of cultures was maintained between these two groups. 
REFERENCES 
Anthony, David 
1990 Migration in archaeology. American Anthropologist 92:895-914. 
Auger, Reginald 
1986 Factory Cove: An Early Palaeo-Eskimo Component From the West Coast of 
Newfoundland. In Palaeo-Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland, Labrador and 
Ungava, Reports in Archaeology No.1, pp 111-118, Memorial University of 
Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
Bielawski, Ellen 
1979 Contactual Transformations: The Dorset-Thule Succession. In Thule Eskimo 
Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective, edited by A.P. McCartney, pp 100-
109. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of 
Canada, Paper 88, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 
1988 Palaeoeskimo Variability: The Early Arctic Small Tool Tradition in the Central 
Canadian Arctic. American Antiquity 53(1 ):52-7 4. 
Binford, Lewis R. 
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and 
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity, 45(1):4-20. 
1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London. 
Bowman, Sheridan 
1990 Radiocarbon Dating. University of California Press, Berkeley. 
Broom, L., B.J. Siegel, E.Z. Vogt and J.B. Wilson 
1954 Acculturation: An Explanatory Formulation. American Anthropologist, 56:973-
995. 
Cox, Steven 
1977 Prehistoric Settlement and Culture Change at Okak, Labrador. Unpublished 
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. 
1978 Palaeo-Eskimo Occupations of the Northern Labrador Coast. Arctic 
Anthropology XV (2):96-118. 
1988 Pre-Dorset Occupations ofOkak Bay, Labrador. The Northern Raven, 8(3):1-3. 
92 
2002 Palaeoeskimo Structures in the Okak Region of Labrador. Paper presented at the 
Palaeoeskimo Architecture Conference, St. Pierre. 
Cox, Stephen and Art Spiess 
1980 Dorset Settlement and Subsistence in Northern Labrador. Arctic 33:659-669. 
Dumond, Don E. 
1987 The Eskimos and Aleuts. Thames and Hudson Limited, London. 
Erwin, John 
1995 An Intrasite Analysis of Phillip's Garden: A Middle Dorset Palaeo-Eskmio Site at 
Port au Choix, Newfoundland. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Department of 
Anthropology, Memorial University ofNewfoundland. St. Johns, Newfoundland. 
Fitzhugh, William 
1972 Environmental Archeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador A 
Survey of the Central Labrador Coast From 3000 B.C. to the Present. 
Smithsonian Contributions the Anthropology No.16, Smithsonian Institution 
Press, Washington. 
1976 Preliminary Culture History ofNain, Labrador: Smithsonian Fieldwork, 1975. 
Journal of Field Archaeology 3:123-142. 
1977 Archaeological Site Record forms and related information for Labrador sites. On 
file, Arctic Studies Centre, National Museum ofNatural History, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, D.C .. 
1980a Archaeological Site Record forms and related information. On file, Arctic Studies 
Centre, National Museum ofNatural History, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D.C .. 
1980b Archaeological Site Record forms and related information, on file with the 
Provincial Archaeology Office of the Culture and Heritage Division, Department 
of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, 
St. John's, Newfoundland. 
1980c Preliminary Report on the Tomgat Archaeological Project. Arctic 33(3):585-606. 
1980d A Review of Paleo-Eskimo Culture History in Southern Quebec-Labrador and 
Newfoundland. Etudes/Inuit!Studies 4( 1-2):21-31. 
93 
1981 Smithsonian Archaeological Surveys, Central and Northern Labrador, 1980. In 
Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1980, Annual Report No. 1. Edited 
by Jane Sproull Thomson and Bernard Ransom, pp 26-47. Historic Resources 
Division, Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
1997 Biogeographical Archaeology in the Eastern North American Arctic. Human 
Ecology 25(3), pp. 385-418. 
Friesen, Max T. 
2000 The Role of Social Factors in Dorset- Thule Interaction. In Identities and Culture 
Contacts in the Arctic, Proceedings from a Conference at the Danish National 
Museum, Copenhagen, November 30 to December 2, 1999, edited by Martin 
Appelt, Joel Berglund and Hans Christian Gullmr, pp 206-220. Danish Polar 
Center Publications No.8, Dansk Polar Center, Copenhagen. 
Gendron, Daniel, and Claude Pinard 
2000 Early Palaeo-Eskmio Occupations in Nunavik: A Re-Appraisal. In Identities and 
Culture Contacts in the Arctic, Proceedings from a Conference at the Danish 
National Museum, Copenhagen, November 30 to December 2, 1999, edited by 
Martin Appelt, Joel Berglund and Hans Christian Gull0V, pp 129-142. Danish 
Polar Center Publications No.8, Dansk Polar Center, Copenhagen. 
Green, Stanton W. 
1991 Foragers and Farmers on the Prehistoric Irish Frontier. In Between Bands and 
States, Edited by Susan. A. Gregg, pp 216-244. Center for Archaeological 
Investigations Occasional Papers No.9, Carbondale. 
Gr0nnow, Bjame 
1996 Qeqertasussuk- the Archaeology of a Frozen Saqqaq Site in Disko Bugt, West 
Greenland. In Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour ofWilliam E. 
Taylor, Jr., edited by David Morrison and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp 197-238, 
Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper 149, Canadian Museum 
of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. 
Guyer, Erica Lisa 
1997 Prehistoric Culture Contact: Dorset-Thule Interaction in Labrador and Baffin 
Island? Unpublished B.A. Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brown 
University. 
Halstead, Paul and John O'Shea 
1989 Introduction: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. In Bad Year 
Economics Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, edited by Paul Halstead 
and John O'Shea, pp1-7. New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge. 
Harp, Elmer Jr. 
1976 Dorset Settlement Patterns in Newfoundland and Southeastern Hudson Bay. In 
Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems, edited by M.S. Maxwell, pp 
119-138. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 31. 
Hartery, Latonia and Tim Rast 
94 
2001 Bird Cove Archaeology Project 2000 Field Season: Final Report. Manuscript on 
file the Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture and 
Recreation, Provincial Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, 
Newfoundland. 
2002 Bird Cove Archaeology Project 2001 Field Season: Final Report. Manuscript on 
file the Provincial Archaeology Office, Department of Tourism, Culture and 
Recreation, Provincial Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, 
Newfoundland. 
Hood, Bryan 
1986 Nukasusutok 12: Early/Middle Dorset Axial Structures from the Nain Region, 
Labrador. In Palaeo-Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland, Labrador and Ungava, 
Reports in Archaeology No.1, pp 49-64, Memorial University ofNewfoundland, 
St. John's, Newfoundland. 
Kelly, Robert L. 
1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 
39:277-306. 
1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures and Effects. Annual 
Review of Anthropology 21:43-66. 
Kennett, Douglas, J. 
1996 General Systems Theory. In The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, edited by 
Brian M. Fagan, pp 245-246. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 
LeBlanc, Raymond 
1994 The Crane Site and the Lagoon Complex in the Western Canadian Arctic. In 
Threads in Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr., edited 
by David Morrison and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 87-102. Mercury Series Paper 149, 
Archaeological Survey of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, 
Quebec. 
LeBlanc, Sylvie 
1996 A Place with a View: Groswater Subsistence-Settlement Patterns in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, 
Memorial University ofNewfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
2000 ''Middle Dorset (1900-11 00 BP) Regional Variability on the Island of 
Newfoundland and in Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. In Identities and Culture 
Contacts in the Arctic, Proceedings from a Conference at the Danish National 
Museum, Copenhagen, November 30 to December 2, 1999, edited by Martin 
Appelt, Joel Berglund and Hans Christian Gull0V, pp 97-105. Danish Polar 
Center Publications No.8, Dansk Polar Center, Copenhagen. 
Linton, Ralph 
1963 Acculturation and Process of Culture Change. In Acculturation in Seven 
American Tribes, edited by Ralph Linton, pp 463-482. Appleton-Centruy, 
Glouster. 
1963b The Process of Change Transfer. In Acculturation in Seven American Tribes, 
edited by Ralph Linton, pp 483-500. Appleton-Century, Glouster. 
Loring, Stephen 
95 
1983 An Archaeological Survey of the Inner Bay Region Between Nain and Davis 
Inlet, Labrador: A Report of the 1982 Field Work. In Archaeology in 
Newfoundland and Labrador 1982, Annual Report No.3. Edited by Jane Sproull 
Thomson and Callum Thomson, pp 32-56. Historic Resources Division, 
Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
Loring, Stephen and Steven Cox 
1986 The Postville Pentecostal Groswater Site, Kaipokok Bay, Labrador. In Palaeo-
Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland, Labrador and Ungava. Reports in 
Archaeology No.1, pp 65-94, Memorial University ofNewfoundland, St. John's, 
Newfoundland. 
McManus, Gary and Clifford Wood 
1991 Atlas of Newfoundland and Labrador. Breakwater, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
Maxwell, Moreau S. 
1985 Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando. 
McGhee, Robert 
1976 Paleoeskimo Occupations of Central and High Arctic Canada. In Eastern Arctic 
Prehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems, edited by M.S. Maxwell, pp. 15-39. Memoirs 
of the Society for American Archaeology 31. 
1979 The Paleoeskimo Occupations at Port Refuge, High Arctic Canada. Mercury 
Series Paper 92, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museums of Canada, 
Ottawa. 
1990 Canadian Arctic Prehistory. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa. 
1996 Ancient People of the Arctic. UBC Press, Vancouver. 
1997 Meetings Between Dorset Culture Palaeo-Eskimos and Thule Culture Inuit: 
Evidence from Brooman Point. In Fifty Years of Arctic Research, edited by R. 
Gilberg and H.C. Gull0V, pp 209-214. Publications of the National Museum 
Ethnographical Series, Vol. 18, Department ofEthnography, The National 
Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. 
McGhee, Robert and James A. Tuck 
1976 Un-dating the Canadian Arctic. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Paleoeskimo 
Problems, edited by M.S. Maxwell, pp. 6-14. Memoirs of the Society for 
American Archaeology 31. 
Mine, Leah D. and Kevin P. Smith 
96 
1989 The Spirit of Survival: Cultural Responses to Resource Variablitiy in North 
Alaska. In_Bad Year Economics Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, pp 
8-39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 
Morlan, Richard E. 
2002 The Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database, Canadian Museum of 
Civilization, Hull, Quebec. 
htt,p:www.canadianarchaeology.com/radiocarbon/card/card.html. 
Murray, Maribeth 
1996 Economic Change in the Palaeoeskimo Prehistory ofthe Foxe Basin, N.W.T .. 
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McMaster 
University, Hamilton, Ontario. 
Nagy, Murielle 
1994 A Critical Review of the Pre-Dorset/Dorset Transistion. In Threads in Arctic 
Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr., edited by David Morrison 
and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 1-14. Mercury Series Paper 149, Archaeological Survey 
of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. 
2000 From Pre-Dorset Foragers to Dorset Collectors: Palaeo-eskimo Cultural Change 
in lvujivik, Eastern Canadian Arctic. In Identities and Culture Contacts in the 
Arctic, Proceedings from a Conference at the Danish National Museum, 
Copenhagen, November 30 to December 2, 1999, edited by Martin Appelt, Joel 
Berglund and Hans Christian Gull0V, pp 143-148. Danish Polar Center 
Publications No.8, Dansk Polar Center, Copenhagen. 
Odess, Dan 
1998 The Archaeology oflnteraction: Views from Artifact Style and Material 
Exchange in Dorset Society. American Antiquity 63(3):417"435. 
Park, Robert W. 
97 
2000 The Dorset-Thule Succession Revisited. In Identities and Culture Contacts in the 
Arctic, Proceedings from a Conference at the Danish National Museum, 
Copenhagen, November 30 to December 2, 1999, edited by Martin Appelt, Joel 
Berglund and Hans Christian Gull0V, pp 192-205. Danish Polar Center 
Publications No.8, Dansk Polar Center, Copenhagen. 
Pastore, Ralph T. 
1986 The Spatial Distribution of Late Palaeo-Eskimo Sites on the Island of 
Newfoundland. In Palaeo-Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland, Labrador and 
Ungava. Reports in Archaeology No. 1, pp 125-134, Memorial University of 
Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
Peterson, Robert 
1997 On 'Smell of the Forest' in the Greenlandic Myths and Legends. In Fifty Years of 
Arctic Research, edited by R. Gilberg and H. C. Gull0V, pp 243-248. Publications 
of the National Museum Ethnographical Series, Vol. 18, Department of 
Ethnography, The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. 
Provincial Archaeology Office (P AO) 
n.d. Archaeological Site Record forms, and related information, on file with the 
Provincial Archaeology Office of the Culture and Heritage Division, Department 
of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, 
St. John's, Newfoundland. 
Ramsden, Peter and James A. Tuck 
2001 A Comment on the Pre-Dorset/Dorset Transition in the Eastern Arctic. 
Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, NS 1(1):7-11. 
Rankin, Lisa 
1998 Historical Context and the Forager/Farmer Frontier: Re-Interpreting the Nodwell 
Site. Unpublished PhD Thesis, McMaster, Hamilton, Ontario. 
Renouf, M.A.P. 
1993 Palaeoeskimo Seal Hunters at Port au Choix, Northwestern Newfoundland. 
Newfoundland Studies 9(2):185-212. 
98 
1994 Two Transitional Sites at Port au Choix, Northwestern Newfoundland. In 
Threads in Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour ofWilliam E. Taylor, Jr., edited 
by David Morrison and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 165-196. Mercury Series Paper 149, 
Archaeological Survey of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, 
Quebec. 
2003 Hunter-gatherer Interactions: Mutualism and Resource Partitioning on the Island 
ofNewfoundland. Before Farming200311(4): 1-16. 
Renouf, M.A.P., Trevor Bell and Michael Teal 
2000 Making Contact: Recent Indians and Palaeo-Eskimos on the Island of 
Newfoundland. In Identities and Culture Contacts in the Arctic, Proceedings 
from a Conference at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, November 30 to 
December 2, 1999, edited by Martin Appelt, Joel Berglund and Hans Christian 
Gulliw, pp 106-119. Danish Polar Center Publications No.8, Dansk Polar Center, 
Copenhagen. 
Rouse, Irving 
1986 Migrations in Prehistory. Inferring Population Movement from Cultural 
Remains. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 
Schledermann, Peter 
1996 Voices in Stone A Personal Journey into the Arctic Past. Komatik: Series, Number 
5, The Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary, Alberta. 
Schortman, Edward M. and Patricia A. Urban 
1987 Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory. In Advances in Archaeological 
Method and Theory, Vol. 11, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 37-95. 
Shennan, Stephen 
1996 Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in 
Theory, A Reader, edited by Robert W. Preucen and Ian Hodder, pp. 282-296. 
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 
Spielmann, Katherine A. 
1991 Interaction Among Nonhierarchical Societies. In Farmers, Hunters, and 
Colonists Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by 
Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 1-17. The University of Arizona Press, Arizona. 
1991b Coercion or Cooperation? Plains-Pueblo Interaction in the Protohistoric Period. 
In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists Interaction Between the Southwest and the 
Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 36-50. The University of 
Arizona Press, Arizona. 
Stuiver, M. and P.J. Reimer 
1993 Extended 14C Database and Revides CALm Radiocarbon Calibration Program. 
Radiocarbon 35:215-230. 
Stuiver, M, P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F.G. 
McCormac, J. Plicht, and M. Spurk 
1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP. In Radiocarbon 
40:1041-1083. 
Sutherland, Patricia 
99 
2000 Strands of Culture Contact: Dorset-Norse Interactions in the Canadian Eastern 
Arctic. In Identities and Culture Contacts in the Arctic, Proceedings from a 
Conference at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, November 30 to 
December 2, 1999, edited by Martin Appelt, Joel Berglund and Hans Christian 
Gull0v, pp 159-169. Danish Polar Center Publications No.8, Dansk Polar Center, 
Copenhagen. 
Tuck, James, A. 
1975 Prehistory ofSaglek Bay, Labrador: Archaic and Palaeo-Eskimo Occupations. 
Mercury Series Paper 52, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museums 
of Canada, Ottawa. 
1976 Ancient People of Port au Choix. The Excavation of an Archaic Indian Cemetery 
in Newfoundland. Newfoundland Social and Economic Studies No. 17, Institute 
of Social and Economic Research, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
1988 Prehistory of Atlantic Canada. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of 
Anthropology, Memorial University ofNewfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland. 
Tuck, James, A. and William Fitzhugh 
1986 Palaeo-Eskimo Traditions ofNewfoundland-Labrador: Re-Appraisal. In Palaeo-
Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland, Labrador and Ungava. Reports in 
Archaeology No. 1, pp 161-167, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. 
John's, Newfoundland. 
Wobst, H. Martin 
1978 The Archaeo-ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic 
Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43(2):303-309. 
Wright, J.V. 
1995 A History of the Native People ofCanada, Volume I (10,000-1,000 B.C.). 
Mercury Series Paper 152, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Canadian Museum 
of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. 
Al.l Introduction 
APPENDIX! 
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR 5, HECI-30 
SITE REPORT 
As the excavation of St. John's Harbour 5 (HeCi-30) was never fully reported, the 
following not only provides information on the site as it pertains to the questions asked in this 
thesis, but also serves as a site report for the original investigation. Found in 1977 by 
archaeologists from the Smithsonian Institution, St. John's Harbour 5 was excavated in 1980 
by Susan Kaplan, Bryan Hood, Morton Melgaard and Eric Loring, under the direction of 
William Fitzhugh (Fitzhugh 1980). 
A1.2 Site Location 
The site is located on the north-central Labrador coast, just north ofNain on the 
eastern side of South Aulatsivik Island. South Aulatsivik is sheltered by a number of smaller 
islands on its eastern side (see Chapter 3, Figure 3.2) and the site is at the eastern end of a 
high beach pass which runs east-west between two high rocky hills from the southeast comer 
of St. John's Harbour at an elevation of about 7 masl (Fitzhugh 1977, 1980). 
A1.3 Site Description 
St. John's Harbour 5 was estimated to be between 20 to 30 m2 in size (Fitzhugh 1977). 
Excavation of the site began with a 1 x 8 m trench, and continued with the opening of 18 
more 1 x 1 m units for a total of 26 one metre square units1• While drawings of unit profiles 
1 Surface collections were also made at the site when it was discovered in 1977, at the time of excavation in 
1980, and during a subsequent site revisit in 1984. 
101 
are not present in the field notes2, written notes indicate that the stratigraphy was not deep, and 
that soil profiles consisted of 5-7 em of vegetation and humus on top of sand and gravel. 
Artifacts were located primarily in the upper root zone, concentrated in the humified peat with 
some found in the sand and gravel. The site was interpreted as containing a structure entirely 
insitu because of the vegetation cover that had only some erosion along the edges (Fitzhugh 
1977, 1980). 
The site map (Figure A1.1) indicates an axial feature identified by two double lines of 
paving stones with cleared areas around them. The exterior limits of the axial feature are not 
well defined. Midden areas are located at the end of both double lines of paving stones (Units 
14 and 26). A hearth region that exhibited wood charcoal, fire-cracked rock, grindstone slabs 
and chert material is also located through the central area of the site. At the northwest end of 
the site a hearth pit with charcoal staining is built into the bedrock edge and dug into the 
gravel approximately 15 to 20 em below the surface (Unit 1 ). 
Fire-cracked rock was found in concentrations throughout the site, particularly on top 
of the middens. Blubber-stained rocks were noted primarily in the central region of the site 
and were interpreted by the archaeologists to be lamp areas (Fitzhugh 1980). Charcoal was 
also noted as being scattered throughout many of the units, and an ashy soil deposit was noted 
in Unit 18. Finally in Unit 3 ''two speckles of red ochre" were noted (Fitzhugh 1980). 
2Fieldnotes are available for this site; however there are no notes made on Units 13 and 14 except for a map 
of the units, and there are no notes or maps for Units 15 and 16. Kaplan (personal communication, 1999) 
noted these were lost during the field season. 
11---
! cfPit\J 
I C) 
. 0 
!3 
I 
2 
I ~-]--3--- --------"---------U-1 
I 
Map based on St. John's Harbour 5 
1980 fieldnotes and mapping 
(Fitzhugh et. a!. 1980) 
Figure A 1.1 
Site Plan Showing Feature Locations 
and Excavated Units for 
St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
(J 
• 
\ 
I 
~ -' 
19 
Legend 
Ill Fire cracked rock 
Blubber stained rock 
Flat rock 
....... 
0 
N 
103 
A1.4Dates 
There are two dates obtained from the radiocarbon analysis of the charcoal recovered 
from the site. The first date is from a sample of charcoal collected from the hearth inside the 
house and provided a result of2190 +/- 70 B.P. (SI-4824) (Calibrated to 1 sigma 2327 (2296, 
2270, 2176, 2172, 2153) 2075 B.P.) (Stuiver and Reimer 1980)). The second sample was 
taken from the hearth pit in Unit 1, and produced a date of 2540 +/- 75 B.P. (SI-4825) 
(Calibrated to 1 sigma 2750 (2728) 2474 B.P.) (Stuiver and Reimer 1980)). 
Al.5 Artifact Descriptions 
The St. John's Harbour 5 collection consists of 476 stone tools and worked pieces, 27 
pieces of fire-cracked rock, 1514 flakes and 134 pieces of shatter for a total of 2027 artifacts3• 
In describing the artifacts by tool category, percentages are based on the collection size of 476 
artifacts. 
A1.5.1 Endblades: n = 24 (5o/o of total artifact assemblage) 
There are 24 artifacts identified as endblades (Figure Al.2) in the St. John's Harbour 
5 collection. Seven endblades are complete (Figure A1.2 a-g) , four are distal portions (Figure 
A1.2 1, t-v), three are midsection portions (Figure A1.2 o, p, q) and ten are proximal portions 
(Figure Al.2 i-n, r, s, w, x), two of which are virtually complete minus the very tip of the 
3 While 515 artifacts were identified in the Smithsonian catalogue, at the time of analysis 11 artifacts were 
unaccounted for. Since the attributes listed for these artifacts could not be verified they were not included in 
the artifact descriptions here (see appendix 2 for the list of missing artifacts). Two artifacts that are listed 
separately fit together to create one artifact, thus, are treated as one. In addition, even though the twenty seven 
fire-cracked rock pieces were collected and catalogued, it was decided to not include them in the artifact 
analysis. Thus, these all brought the collection size to 476. 
104 
FigureA1.2 
Endblades from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a b c d 
e f g 
k m 
n 0 p q s 
t u v w X 
105 
endblade (Figure Al.2 i, k). Of the 24 pieces identified, 12 are made from Ramah chert, three 
from black chert, five from grey chert and four from tan chert. The endblades can generally 
be described as small, with most widths ranging between 10 mm and 20 mm. The lengths of 
the complete endblades range from 26 mm to 40 mm. Most endblades are about twice as 
long as they are wide, with an average of about 30.6 mm long to 14.2 mm wide (Table A1.1 ). 
The endblades are triangular in shape, and none of the distal ends shows evidence of tip-
fluting. All endblades appear to be finely made, with generally parallel flaking scars on a 
slightly downtmned angle from the distal end across the ventral surface. At least 15 of the 
endblades are clearly manufactured from a flake, with the remaining nine showing bifacial 
working such that it obscures whether the artifact was initially started from a flake or 
produced through bifacial reduction. Surface grinding is present on two of the endblades 
(HeCi-30:121 and HeCi-30:84) and 17 have notches near the base or lower midsection that 
generally are symmetrical and in single sets. 
The seven complete endblades can be described as belonging to one of two types. 
The first type is represented by three endblades (Figure Al.2 e-g) that are triangular in shape, 
having generally straight bases that are thinned from the base working towards the distal end, 
and have no side-notches. Two of these (Figure Al.2 f and g) are clearly made on a flake and 
the third (Figure A1.2 e) is bifacially worked, but with a plano-convex profile which also 
suggests the artifact was made from a flake. 
The second type of endblade is represented by four examples (Figure A1.2 a-d) that 
have straight bases and have a single set of parallel side-notches placed at varying distances 
above the base. Three of these (Figure A1.2 a-c) have notching higher up on the body of the 
Table Al.l: Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Complete Endblades 
Cat.# Length Width lbickness Length to Base Description Notching Description Cross-section Material 
mm mm mm Width ratio 
92 26 12 3 2.17:1 straight based, thinned on no notching plano-convex Ramah 
dorsal surface 
110 31 12 3 2.58:1 straight based, thinned on no notching plano-convex Ramah 
dorsal surface 
124 27.5 14 4 1.96:1 straight based side-notched (box- plano-convex Ramah 
based) 
138 40 19.5 4 2.05:1 straight based, thinned on side-notched (box- plano-convex grey chert 
dorsal surface based) 
166 30.5 15 4 2.03:1 straight based, thinned on side-notched (box- plano-convex grey chert 
dorsal surface based) 
207 26 12 3 2.17:1 straight based side-notched olano-convex grey chert 
326 33 15 4 2.20:1 straight based, bifacially no notching plano-convex Ramah 
thinned 
AVO 30.6 14.2 3.6 2.17:1 
Range 26-40 12- 3-4 1.96:1 -
19.5 2.58:1 
107 
endblade and produce a shape below the notches that has been described as box-based HeCi-
30: 138 (Figure A1.2) is the most exaggerated in a box-based appearance with the other two 
having less defined notches. The fourth notched point, HeCi-30:207, does not produce the 
parallel side rectangular base (see discussion on notching descriptions below). These four 
endblades also appear to have been made on flakes, with the majority of working on the 
dorsal surfaces and little on the ventral surfaces, creating plano-convex profiles. 
The four distal portions of endblades add little information for descriptive purposes as 
the most diagnostic features, base style and notching, are missing. All four of these 
specimens are plano-convex, with thicknesses ranging from 3 to 6 mm. One of the 
fragments, HeCi-30:206, (Figure A1.2 h) was regarded by Fitzhugh as an anomaly in its acute 
shape and sharp distal end (William Fitzhugh, personal communication 1998), but without its 
base little more can be said. 
The remaining endblade specimens are midsections and bases that show evidence of 
side-notching. Seven of these are box-based in shape. Artifact HeCi-30:121 (Figure Al.2 i) 
has an unusually high placement of the side-notches and also shows evidence of grinding on 
the rectangular base portion of the proximal side. 
All of the bases are straight to slightly concave and most are plano-convex in shape 
and appear to have been manufactured from flakes. Two of the midsection pieces (HeCi-
30:58 and HeCi-30:63) appear to be manufactured from microblades, as is evidenced on each 
piece by the arris present on the dorsal surface, no working on the ventral surface, and the 
width of the pieces which is in keeping with the micro blades found in the collection. 
108 
All endblades that exhibit notching were measured to determine the notch placement 
relative to the base (from the bottom of the base to the bottom of the notch), notch height 
(from the bottom inside of the notch to the top inside of the notch), and the notch depth (from 
the furthest outside point to the furthest inside point in the notch). Where possible, 
measurements were taken for notches on both sides recorded as left and right (with the ventral 
surface down). The type of notching, when possible to describe, was also noted (see Table 
Al.2) 
A1.5.2 Knives: n = 5 (1% oftotal artifact assemblage) 
The St. John's Harbour 5 collection contains five knives, each of which exhibits 
different characteristics. 
HeCi-30:141 (Figure Al.3 a) is made of grey chert that has been bifacially worked to 
create a biconvex profile and slightly asymmetrical sides with one straight edge and one 
slightly convex edge. The base is missing just below the parallel wide notches, which does 
not allow for the :full length to be determined, but with what is present the artifact is > 61 
mm. 
HeCi-30:385 (Figure Al.3 b) is a virtually complete knife (a small portion of the tip is 
missing), bifacially worked on tan chert. Triangular in shape and plano-convex in profile, it is 
symmetrically side-notched at the base, creating slight tangs. 
HeCi-30:155 (Figure A1.3 c) is a complete bifacially ground nephrite knife with slight 
bifacially ground beveled edges, with some cortex still visible at the distal end. The piece is 
asymmetrical, being convex on one lateral edge and straight on the other, and is relatively flat 
on both surfaces. The base is notched producing shallow indents rather than deep side-notches. 
Table A1.2: Summary of notching on Endblades/Points from St. John's Harbour 5 
Cat# base height to height to notch notch notch notch hafting notching description material 
width notch from notch from height height depth depth width 
mm base base mm mm mm mm mm 
mm mm L R L R 
L R 
53 
- - 7.5 - 4.5 - 2.5 10 side-notched (box-based ) tan chert 
58 
- - -
5 
-
2 3 7 side-notched Ramah 
63 
- - - 3 4 2 2 7.5 side-notched (box-based ) grey chert 
84 
-
8 
- 6 - 2.5 - - side-notched (box-based ) tan chert 
121 19 20 20 3 3 3 3.5 11.5 side-notched (box-based ) grey chert 
124 14 8 10 5.5 3 2 2.5 8.5 side-notched (box-based ) Ramah 
138 19.5 13 12 4 4 4 4.5 10.5 side-notched (box-based ) grey chert 
162 
-
6 
-
7 
-
2.5 
- -
side-notched black chert 
166 15 8 8 3.5 2.5 2 2 9.5 side-notched grey chert 
201 12 7 7.5 3 3 2 2 7.5 side-notched (box-based ) Ramah 
207 
-
6.5 5 4 5 2.5 3 7.5 side-notched grey chert 
240 
-
9.5 8.5 4 5 2 2 9 side-notched Ramah 
351 17 8 7 4.5 5 3 4 8.5 side-notched (box-based) tan chert 
413 21.5 10 10 - - - - - side-notched (box-based) Ramah 
414* 
- - - - - - - -
side-notched (possibly box· Ramah 
based) 
439 13 5 5 - - - - 13 side-notched black chert 
509 
-
4 4 - - - - - side-notched Ramah 
n 8 13 12 12 10 12 11 12 
avg 16.5 8.5 8.0 4.5 4.0 2.5 3.0 9.0 
range 12- 4-20 4-20 3-7 2.5-5 2-4 2-4.5 7-13 
21.5 
L&R n/a 8.5 4.0 2.5 
avg (n=24) (n=22) (n=23) 
indicates measurement could not be made (either not present or incomplete) 
* 414 is a midsection that was too incomplete for measurements and all that can be noted is that notching is present. 
-0 \0 
110 
Figure Al.3 
Knives from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a b c d e 
111 
HeCi-30:165 (Figure Al.3 d) is produced from a flake which creates a strong curve in 
the longitudinal cross-section of the artifact. It is bifacially worked grey chert with parallel 
side-notches at the base with an overall triangular shape and plano-convex profile. 
HeCi-30:415 (Figure Al.3 e) is a tan chert biface that broke and then was reworked 
into a knife-like or celt-like tool by biracially grinding the distal end of the remaining biface to 
create a bifacially ground beveled edge on an angle. The notching that is present on one side of 
the artifact (the other is missing) appears to be a product of the original function as the flaking 
pattern is consistent with the non-reworked area around the notch. (See Table A1.3 for 
summary of all knives) 
A1.5.3 Bifaces: n = 41 (9% oftotal artifact assemblage) 
The biface category has 41 artifacts which includes bifacially worked artifacts that 
could not be clearly identified as an endblade, knife or other tool category (See Figure A1.4 for 
a selection). Of these artifacts, 19 are made from Ramah, 11 from black chert, eight from grey 
chert, two from tan chert, and one from quartz crystal. 
There are ten proximal portions of bifaces, including seven that are generally 
nondescript, except to note that notching is present on four of them (see Table A1.4 for a 
summary of notching on bifaces), and that one, HeCi-30:169, is the only biface made from 
quartz crystal (Figure A1.4 a). Artifact HeCi-30:375 (Figure A1.4 b) exhibits a slightly 
concave base with basal thinning flakes removed and is reminiscent of the endblades, but has 
less definition to comfortably put it in the endblade category. The remaining two proximal 
portions, HeCi-30:78 (Figure Al.4 c) and HeCi-30:345 (Figure A1.4 d) are stemmed, and the 
latter artifact was described in the fieldnotes as possibly being a Pre-Dorset artifact based on 
Table A1.3:Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Knives 
=II: ~ ~ ~ 0 m ...:I 1;j ·.p ...:I ~ 
m 
u j ~ til e ~ m m til ~ ] ~ ·~ i Q) ~ Q) Q) ...:I t) ~ ~ ~ Q) ...... .s til ,&l ,&l ] CI:S 
1 t:Q ~ El ] <1:1 .g 8 1 -8 ...:I ..... 8 
0 
.s ..... 
i i ] ] 
141 - 21 6 - - - - 11 
155 46.5 25 2.5 1.86:1 24 7 7 7 
165 39 18 4 2.16:1 15.5 2 2.5 5 
385 48 21.5 4.5 2.23:1 22 3 2 4 
415 
-
21 3 - - - - 6 
n 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 
avg 44.5 21 4 2.08:1 20.5 4 4 6.5 
~ ...:I ~ 
m 
m ~ m ~ ·~ i ~ ·~ ] ] ·~ l 8 
-8 -8 
8 8 1! 
11 3 2 16.5 
8 2 2 20.5 
4.5 1.5 1 13 
5 2 2.5 17 
- 2 - -
4 5 4 4 
7 2 2 16.5 
§ § 
·.p ·.p 
·5 ·5 
til til Q) Q) 
Cl Cl 
Q) j ~ t:Q ~ 
broken side-notched 
(wide) 
straight side-notched 
(wide) 
slightly side-notched 
concave 
slightly side-notched 
concave 
broken -
§ 
·.g 
Q) 
til 
I 
til 
til 
8 
biconvex 
plano-
plano 
plano-
convex 
plano-
convex 
plano-
convex 
«1 
'5 
1;j 
::s 
grey chert 
nephrite 
grey chert 
tan chert 
tan chert 
...... 
...... 
N 
113 
Figure Al.4 
A Selection of Bifaces from St. John/s Harbour 5/ HeCi-30 
a b c d e 
f g h 
k m n 0 
Table A1.4: Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Biface Notching 
Cat.# base height height notch notch notch notch hafting Cross-section Material 
width from from height height width width width 
mm basemm basemm mm mm mm mm mm 
L R L R L R 
65* 
- - - - - - - -
biconvex Ramah 
169 10.5 3 2 6 8 2 1.5 14 plano-convex quartz crystal 
250 
-
4 - 7 - 3 - - plano-convex black chert 
486 - - - 5 - 3 - - plano-convex Ramah 
496 19 5 4 8 5 3 2 17 biconvex black chert 
n 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 2 
avg 15 4 3 6.5 6.5 3 2 15.5 
* 65 1s too mcomplete for measurements and all that can be noted 1s that notching 1s present 
Table A1.5: Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Stemmed Bifaces 
Cat# Base width mm shoulderwidth stem length mm 
mm 
78 24 29 18 
345 15 18.5 20 
n 2 2 2 
avg 19.5 24 19 
115 
the shape of the stem (Fitzhugh 1980) (see Table Al.5 for a summary of stemmed bifaces). 
The remaining bifaces consist of nine distal portions, nine midsection fragments, nine 
edge fragments and three fragments with no discernable shape. HeCi-30:463 (Figure A1.4 e) 
is an asymmetric biface midsection that if complete would likely be an asymmetric knife 
similar in shape to Groswater knives and the ground nephrite knife referred to earlier. HeCi-
30:346 (Figure A1.4 f) is the second artifact that was noted in the fieldnotes as being a 
possible Pre-Dorset artifact, based on the overall shape of the midsection (Fitzhugh 1980) and 
HeCi-30:486 (Figure A1.4 h) is the only biface with evidence of notching. Biface fragment 
HeCi-30:51 (Figure A1.4 i) is made from Ramah that appears to have been burnt given the 
milky white colour of the artifact. 
One artifact, HeCi-30:497 (Figure A1.4 j), is made of Ramah and is very thin and 
narrow along the midsection up to the distal end. While the base is not present the width of 
ten mm and thickness of three mmis consistent along most of the 30 mm ofbody present. In 
appearance it more closely resembles a drill tip, but not enough of the artifact is present to 
place it comfortably in a separate tool category. 
A1.5.4 Biface Preforms: n = 10 (2% of total artifact assemblage) 
There are ten biface preforms in the collection with two made of nephrite, three of 
Ramah, one of grey chert and four of tan chert. 
A1.5.5 Sideblades: n = 7 (1% of total artifact assemblage) 
The seven sideblades identified in the St. John's Harbour 5 collection include one 
made of Ramah, three of black chert, two of grey chert and one of tan chert (Figure Al.5). 
The widest piece of these is two em. All of the side blades are bifacially worked, but some 
116 
Figure Al.5 
Sideblades from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a b c d 
e f g 
117 
show more working on one side. No grinding is noted on the surfaces. All are 
diamond/ovate shaped, except HeCi-30:172 (Figure Al.5 g) which is more ova1/rectangular 
and may be a preform. 
A1.5.6 Scrapers: n = 25 (5% of total artifact assemblage) 
The 25 endscrapers identified in the collection include three made of Ramah, five of 
tan chert, ten of grey chert and six of black chert (Figure Al.6). Most of the scrapers are 
clearly made from flakes and are uni:facially worked on the dorsal surface. Compared with 
other tool categories, scrapers tend to have less breakage. The scrapers can be divided into 
five categories based on their overall shape. The first category, with three scrapers, includes 
those that are eared on the distal end and have parallel sides and an elongated stem (Figure 
Al.6 a-c). A scraper was described as eared when there was a shoulder that formed small 
tangs before flaring out on the dista1/scraping end. The second category, with five scrapers, 
consists of eared scrapers with parallel sides and a rectangular base (Figure Al.6 d-h). The 
third category, with five scrapers, are eared with contracting sides creating a triangular shaped 
base (Figure Al.6 i-m). The fourth category, with seven scrapers, are ones that have no clear 
eared distal end and are triangular in shape (Figure Al.6 n-t). The final category includes 
scrapers that do not fit into the other four categories and include a scraper made on a broken 
end of a microblade (Figure Al.6 u), two that appear to have been made using a broken 
biface, with one edge made into a working/scraping edge (Figure Al.6 v and w), and two that 
are rounded in shape (Figure Al.6 x andy) with the later being bifacially worked over most 
of the surfaces unlike the majority of the rest of the scrapers (see Table Al.6 for a summary of 
scrapers). 
Figure Al.6 118 
Scrapers from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a b c 
d e f g h 
k m 
n 0 p q 
s t 
u v w X y 
119 
Table A1.6: Summary of Scrapers 
Cat# Scraper Scrape base shoulder stem stem length scraping material 
type redge width width length mmR edge angle 
width mm mm mmL 
mm 
281 stemmed 22.5 18 18 28 27.5 50o tan chert 
253 stemmed 23.5 14 19 25 21 50o black chert 
318 stemmed 21 14 15 18 19 70o grey chert 
154 square 29 27 27 18.5 21.5 60o Ramah 
eared 
164 square 33 29 26.5 16.5 18 60o grey chert 
eared 
170 square 32 26 27 14 16 70o grey chert 
eared 
313 square 26.5 26.5 24.5 17.5 15 50o black chert 
eared 
280 square 25 18 18.5 15 15 60o grey chert 
eared 
436 triangular 22 14 18 14 13 60o black chert 
eared 
56 triangular 23.5 15 21 17 17.5 75o tan chert 
eared 
377 triangular 26 15 23 17 16 70o Ramah 
eared 
102 triangular 22 9.5 17 13 13.5 70o grey chert 
eared 
314 triangular 20 12 15 13 15 60o grey chert 
eared 
80 triangular 20.5 - - - - 60o grey chert 
249 triangular 24.5 
- - - -
60o grey chert 
127 triangular 27 
- - - -
70o grey chert 
70 triangular 15 - - - - 40o grey chert 
91 triangular 26.5 
- - - -
80o tan chert 
79 triangular 22 - - - - 70o tan chert 
62 triangular 21.5 
- - - -
60o tan chert 
294 rectangular 29 - - - - 50o Ramah 
98 rectangular - 45o grey chert 
125 microblade 10 - - - - 40o black chert 
81 round - - - - - 30o black chert 
322 round - - - - - 40o black chert 
n 22 13 13 13 13 25 
avg 24 18 17.5 17.5 21 58o 
range 10-33 9.5-29 13-28 13- 15-27 30o- 80o 
27.5 
120 
A1.5.7 Burin-like-Tools: n = 13 (3% of total artifact assemblage) 
There are 13 burin-like-tools identified in this collection (Figure Al.7). These include 
11 grey chert specimens, one tan chert, and one made of slate. All the chert burin-like-tools 
have been chipped then bifacially ground with their distal ends ground and beveled. Striation 
marks are clearly visible on the ground surfaces. Four of these are side-notched, two with 
only one notch on one side, the other two with a single set of notches that are on opposite 
sides and parallel to each other. All but one (HeCi-30:321) (Figure Al.7 g) are incomplete, 
with their distal or proximal edges being broken, which seems to suggest that burin-like-tools 
are produced on broken bifaces that have been ground and reworked once they were no longer 
functional as a biface. The slate specimen, HeCi-30:319 (Figure Al.7 h), is shaped 
differently than the chert examples and could be considered a preform (see Table Al.7 for a 
summary of burin-like-tools) 
A1.5.8 Burin Spalls: n = 1 (<0.5°/o of total artifact assemblage) 
Only one burin spall, made from black chert, was identified in the St. John's Harbour 
5 collection. It is whole and measures 11 mm x 4 mm x 2.5 mm. 
A1.5.9 Celts: n = 5 (1% of total artifact assemblage) 
The collection contains three celts and two celt preforms. One complete slate 
specimen is broken in two pieces, which fit together (Figure Al.8 a). Its distal end is 
rounded, beveled and ground with the grinding marks apparent on the surface. The other two 
celts are smaller ground slate pieces, with HeCi-30:447 (Figure Al.8 b) being virtually 
complete nephrite celt with a prominent ground and beveled distal edge, and HeCi-30:292 
(Figure Al.8 c) an incomplete tan chert lateral piece, with little to indicate overall shape. 
121 
Two preforms (Figure 9 a and b) have a roughly rectangular shape to indicate a celt shape, but 
thinning and grinding has not been done to complete the items. 
Table A1.7: Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Burin-like-tools Notching 
Cat# Base Notch Notch Notch Notch Notch Notch Material Chipped and 
width Height Height Height Height Width Width ground? 
from from L R L R 
base base 
L R 
25 13 3 - 3.5 - 2.5 - grey chert yes 
200 16 3 2 6 7 2 1.5 grey chert yes 
319 10 0 3.5 9 6.5 3 2 slate ground only 
321 16.5 2 - 6 - 1.5 - grey chert yes 
335 12 2 1.5 4.5 5 2 2.5 tan chert yes 
n 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 
avg 
122 
Figure Al.7 
Burin-like-tools from St. John's Harbour 5, HECi-30 
a b c d 
e f g h 
k m 
01 345cm 
123 
Figure Al.8 
Celts from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a 
c 
b 
0 1 2 3 4 §em 
124 
Figure A 1.9 
Celt Preforms from St. John/s Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a 
b 
0 1 
125 
A1.5.10 Microblades: n = 268 (56% of total artifact assemblage) 
Microblades represent the largest tool category in the collection, with over 50% of 
the artifacts identified as a micro blade. In total, 268 microblades are identified, 
represented by 36 complete microblades, 28 distal portions, 78 midsections and 126 
proximal portions. There is also a greater variety of material types than has been noted in 
the other artifact categories, with brown chert and a translucent brown/grey chert also 
identified. In total, chert accounts for 50.5% of the material used for microblades. The 
following chart summarizes the material types: 
Table A1.8: St. John's Harbour 5 Microblades by Material Type 
Black Brown Grey chert Tan chert Translucent Quartz Ramah Total 
chert chert chert crystal 
43 12 59 13 8 44 89 268 
16% 4.5% 22% 5% 3% 16.5% 33% 100% 
Only the 36 complete microblades could be measured both in length and width. 
The width range for the complete microblades was 3.5 to 20 mm with an average of 11 
mm, the length range was 10- 75 mm with an average of26 mm. The micro blade that 
measured 75 mm (HeCi-30:137) was unusual, and if removed the range is only 10 mm to 
53 mm, with an average of 24 mm. 
Only width could be commented on for all 268 microblades. The range is 1.5 to 
20 mm, with the average being 9 mm. The majority of specimens, represented by 227 
microblades, or 85%, fell between 6.5 and 15.0 mm. 
126 
Table A1.9: Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Complete Microblades 
Cat.# Lengthmm Width Length to Thickness Material 
mm width ratio mm 
11 21 18 1.2:1 2 black chert 
15 28 9.5 2.9:1 4 tan chert 
42 18 10 1.8:1 3 qtz. crystal 
86 17 7 2.4:1 2 grey chert 
97 19 7 2.7:1 2 grey chert 
100 12 6 2.0:1 1.5 chert, brown 
113 29 10 2.9:1 2.5 grey chert 
135 14 6.5 2.2:1 2 grey chert 
137 75 20 3.8:1 9 black chert 
152 34 16 2.1:1 5 grey chert 
188 50.5 12 4.2:1 5 grey chert 
190 31 11 2.8:1 6 grey chert 
231 53 14 3.8:1 7 Ramah 
234 42 11 3.8:1 6 tan chert 
254 21.5 7 3.1:1 2 brown. chert 
265 11.5 3.5 3.3:1 1 black chert 
276 19 9 2.1:1 1 black chert 
298 21 6.5 3.2:1 2 grey chert 
308 21 7.5 2.8:1 2 grey chert 
353 11.5 6 1.9:1 3 grey chert 
355 10 4 2.5:1 1.5 grey chert 
363 19 13 1.5:1 2 black chert 
365 14 7 2.0:1 2 grey chert 
366 29 12.5 2.3:1 2 black chert 
372 20 12 1.7:1 3.5 grey chert 
392 19 10.5 1.8:1 4 black chert 
397 17 8 2.1:1 2 quartz crystal 
417 21 10 2.1:1 2 black chert 
423 21.5 9 2.4:1 2 grey chert 
441 46 11 4.2:1 4 grey chert 
451 20 7 2.9:1 2 Ramah 
459 25.5 10 2.6:1 2 Ramah 
481 42.5 12 3.5:1 6.5 Ramah 
493 48 8 6.0:1 2 lgreychert 
127 
Cat.# Length nun Width Length to Thickness Material 
nun width ratio nun 
505 13 4.5 2.9:1 1 Ramah 
507 10.5 5 2.1:1 1.5 Ramah 
n 36 36 36 36 
avg 25.5 9.5 2.7:1 3 
range 10-75 3.5-20 1.2:1 - 6.0:1 1- 9 
Table Al.lO: Summary of St John's Harbour 5 Micro blade Widths 
Width of Number of %of 
microblade, Range micro blades micro blades 
inmm 
0.5-3.0 1 0%(>1%) 
3.5-6.0 22 8% 
6.5-9.0 82 31% 
9.5- 12.0 100 37% 
12.5-15.0 45 17% 
15.5-18.0 16 6% 
18.5-21.0 2 1% 
n 268 100% 
avg 9mm 
range 1.5-20 
Retouching can be observed on 43 of the 268 microblades. This includes 22 that have 
retouching along the edges, 17 of which are stemmed, two that are notched, and two that are 
both stemmed and notched. Presumably the stemming and notching were a function of 
hafting techniques for the microblade to be attached to some sort of handle (See Figure 
Al.lO). 
Table A1.11 summarizes the information collected on the micro blades that are 
stemmed including whether the stem was pronounced, or slight in appearance. 
128 
Figure A l . 1 0 
A Selection of Microblades from St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
a b c d 
e f g h 
129 
Table Al.U: Summary of St. John's Harbour 5 Microblade Stems 
Cat Condition Base Shoulder Base to Base to Material Pronounced 
# width width shoulder shoulder or slight 
mm mm mm mm 
L R 
137 complete 10 17 20.5 19 b1ackchert pronounced 
366 complete 4 12 11 11 black chert slight 
231 complete 9 13 18 17 Ramah pronounced 
64 proximal 7 10.5 7.5 8 black chert slight 
72 proximal 12 18 20 18 Ramah pronounced 
88 proximal 5 8 14 14 quartz crystal slight 
101 proximal 4.5 6.5 5.5 5 quartz crystal pronounced 
123 proximal 6 9.5 8 9 Ramah slight 
151 proximal 10 12 11 12.5 grey chert slight 
287 proximal 8.5 12 12 13 Ramah slight 
339 proximal 6.5 13 15 15 grey chert pronounced 
404 proximal 5 5.5 7 6 quartz crystal slight 
139 proximal 4 6 5 7 quartz crystal slight 
140 proximal 4 5.5 6.5 6.5 quartz crystal pronounced 
1 proximal 8 15 20 19.5 Ramah pronounced 
10 proximal 7 12.5 18 18 Ramah slight 
239 proximal 9.5 12 12 12 grey chert pronounced 
avg 7 11 12 12 
n=17 
A1.5.11 Utilized Flakes: n = 37 (8%. of total artifact assemblage) 
This category consists of those flakes that exhibit signs of some working along the 
edges. These utilized flakes are generally larger in size than many of the artifacts in the 
collection, with the smallest retouched flake being 15 x 10.5 mm and the largest 47.5 x 38.5 
mm. The material is varied with the flakes represented by eight black chert, seven tan chert, 
two quartz crystal, ten grey chert, and ten Ramah. 
A1.5.12 Ground Flakes: n = 17 (4% oftotal artifact assemblage) 
Ground flakes are similar to retouched flakes in that after the flake was removed from 
the core there was deliberate reworking. There are ten nephrite flakes and one quartzite flake 
130 
that show evidence of grinding. The nephrite pieces exhibit varying degrees of grinding with 
some showing grinding on the entire surface, and others only slight areas of grinding. None 
indicate any shape that would suggest a tool category. 
A1.5.13 Cores: n = 12 (3% of total artifact assemblage) 
There are twelve cores from which either flakes or microblades have been removed in 
the collection. Of these, four are flake cores, with two made from tan chert, one from quartz 
and one from grey chert. The remaining eight, one chert and seven quartz crystal, all have 
evidence of micro blade removal. 
A1.5.14 Unidentified worked pieces: n = 11 ( 20fc, of total artifact assemblage) 
There are 11 pieces that appear worked with flake scars on their surface, but which 
have no other apparent shape or indication of :fimction. These include three quartz crystal, 
one quartzite, three Ramah, two black chert, and two grey chert. There may be some 
evidence of heat treatment on one of the Ramah pieces, HeCi-30:52, as indicated by the milky 
white colour of the surface. 
A1.5.15 Flakes n = 1379 (not included in calculation of total artifact assemblage) 
Flakes were counted and divided into material categories, with Ramah, black chert, 
grey chert, tan chert and quartz crystal being the predominantly recognized materials. All 
other materials were classified under 'other' (See Table Al.12). Flakes were also divided into 
primary, secondary, tertiary flakes and unidentifiable flakes and shatter. 
131 
Table Al.ll: St. John's Barbour 5 Flakes by Type and Material 
F1akeType Black Grey Tan Ramah Quartz Other (slate, Total % 
Chert Chert Chert crystal nephrite etc.) 
n.· 2 4 0 5 0 1 12 1% TlUUQ.l, 
Secondary 105 114 55 114 9 11 408 30% 
Tertiary 23 17 6 9 0 2 57 4% 
Unidentified 215 197 76 346 21 47 902 65% 
Total 345 332 137 474 30 61 1379 
% 25% 24% 10% 34% 2% 5% 100% 
Figure Al.ll: ffistogram of St. John's Barbour 5 Flakes by Type and Material 
J llJid:rlifiej 
CG 
I;: EJTe1iay 
.... 
0 
ISm-dry ... CD 
.a 
IRinay E 
:::s 
c 
132 
A1.16 Shatter n = 134 (not included in calculation of total artifact assemblage) 
Shatter was separated from the flakes and was also noted in the collection. The 
following summarizes the shatter by material. 
Table Al.13: Summary of St John's Harbour 5 Shatter by Material 
Black Chert Grey Chert Tan Chert Ramah Quartz Other (slate, Total 
nephrite etc.) 
Shatter 7 52 13 28 21 13 134 
% 5% 39% 10% 21% 15% 10% 100% 
A1.5.17 Artifact Summary 
Excluding flakes and shatter, there is a total of 14 artifact categories identified in the 
St. John's Harbour 5 collection. Microblades are the most predominant artifact category, 
representing 56% of the 497 artifacts. The remaining 44% are represented by a variety of 
artifacts as is seen in Table 14. A comparison of material types indicates that chert is the 
predominant material of choice, followed by Ramah. 
A1.6 Distribution of artifacts within the site and in relation to features 
Of the 509 artifacts 400 can be associated directly with locations in the site and are 
not a result of surface collections. Figure A1.11 shows the distribution across the site. The 
half squares indicate those locations where artifacts were collected and noted as coming from 
a combination of two squares. Table Al.15 gives a detailed account of what artifacts were 
found in what locations. 
Table A1.14: St. John's Harbour 5 Artifacts by Material Type 
MateriaV Artifact All Ramah Quartz Quartzite Nephrite Slate Other Total % 
type cherts crystal 
Endblades 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 24 5% 
Knives 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1% 
Bifaces 21 13 1 0 0 0 0 41 9% 
Biface Preforms 5 3 0 0 2 0 0 10 2% 
Sideblades 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 % 
Scrapers 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 25 5% 
Burin-like tools 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 3% 
Burin spalls 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% (< 1%) 
Celts 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 1% 
Microblades 135 89 44 0 0 0 0 268 56% 
Utilized flakes 25 10 2 0 0 0 0 37 8% 
Ground flakes 3 0 0 1 13 0 0 17 4% 
Cores 4 1 7 0 0 0 0 12 3% 
Unidentified pieces 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 11 2% 
TOTAL 256 141 57 2 17 2 1 476 
% 54% 30% 12% 0%(<1%) 4% 0%<1%) 0%(<1%) 100% 
Figure A l . l 2 
Artifact Disrtribution by Square for St. John's Harbour 5, HeCi-30 
N 
+ 
o lm 
Legend 
0 artifacts 
1 -9 artifacts 
1 0- l 9 artifacts 
20-29 artifacts 
30-39 artifacts 
Table A1.15: St. John's Harbour 5 Artifacts by Location on Site 
Unit Endblades Knives Bifaces Sideblade Scrapers BLTs Burin celts micro blades utilized ground cores unidentified total 
s spalls flakes flakes worked 
1 1 1 3 9 14 
2 1 2 9 1 13 
3 1 1 1 1 13 4 21 
4 1 2 3 
4and5 1 3 1 1 6 
5 1 1 2 3 1 8 
6 1 1 1 7 10 
7 1 1 6 8 
7and8 2 3 5 
8 2 2 1 2 6 13 
9 1 5 1 7 
9 and 10 1 1 3 1 2 8 
10 1 4 5 
11 2 2 6 10 
12 2 1 4 1 8 
13 2 1 2 14 1 3 1 24 
13 and 2 7 2 2 13 
14 
14 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 17 
15 
15 and 2 1 3 1 18 6 1 2 2 36 
16 
16 2 2 
17 1 2 1 4 2 7 17 
17and 1 1 1 2 1 6 
18 
18 1 1 
Unit Endblades Knives Bifaces Sideblade Scrapers BLTs Burin celts micro blades utilized ground cores unidentified total 
s spalls flakes flakes :worked 
19 1 0.5 5 6.5 
19and 3 3 
20 
20 1 1 
21 1 3 4 8 
21 and 6 1 7 
22 
22 
23 1 1 6 1 18 3 1 31 
23 and 8 4 12 
24 
24 2 1 2 16 1 22 
25 2 3 1 2.5 14 2 2 25.5 
26 6 21 1 1 29 
1977 4 1 24 5 2 3 1 40 
surface 
1980 3 8 3 8 2 1 25 
surface 
1984 1 2 2 1 1 7 
surface 
!Under 2 1 3 
main 
hearth 
Total 24 5 51 7 25 13 1 5 268 37 17 12 11 476 
The distribution of flakes is illustrated in Figure Al.13. Table Al.16 shows the 
flakes by material and location, while Table A1.17 indicates flakes by type and location. 
137 
The distribution of artifacts and flakes indicates that there are concentrations of 
material in the midden areas as would be expected. The hearth area, although free of 
structural rocks and features, has enough material left behind to suggest a certain amount of 
activity occurring here. All of the artifact tool categories appear to be fairly evenly 
distributed throughout the site. The fieldnotes indicated that for the hearth pit in square 1 the 
archaeologists found many of the small and most of the big flakes in the hearth area where 
there was a large amount of charcoal and in the hearth pit itself; but there was no particular 
tool concentration found in the pit (Fitzhugh et al. 1980). There is a heavier concentration of 
flakes in the southwest end of the site, which may suggest more artifact preparation occurring 
here. The fact that the majority of flakes that could be identified are secondary and that there 
is little evidence of cortex on the flakes and tools suggests that the material to make the tools 
is arriving at the site after it has already been worked on somewhere else. This suggests that 
either preforms or virtually finished tools are being brought to the site, and not large amounts 
of unfinished raw material. Thus this site is not a primary tool manufacturing location. The 
small number of tertiary flakes could suggest that the final finishing of the tools is occurring 
elsewhere, or that given that tertiary flakes are generally smaller, these were missed during 
the excavation process. 
0 ('I) 
I 
~ 
I 
.. 
LO 
.._ 
:J 
0 
.Q 
0 
I 
en 
c 
..c 
0 
--:> 
c/5 
E 
1J 
c 
<D 
0> 
~ 
138 
139 
Table A1.16: St. John's Harbour 5 Flakes by Material and Location 
Black Grey Quartz 
Square Ramah Chert Chert Tan Chert Crystal Other TOTAL 
1 8 3 31 15 0 1 58 
2 4 1 8 7 1 0 21 
3 8 11 14 4 0 0 37 
4and5 9 2 23 14 1 3 52 
6 9 2 5 2 0 1 19 
7 and8 35 34 60 28 5 11 173 
9 and 10 23 19 16 4 4 3 70 
11 14 3 11 3 1 2 36 
12 4 3 3 1 0 1 12 
13 and 14 71 43 36 6 3 11 171 
15 and 16 30 35 19 10 6 0 100 
17and18 24 15 15 3 1 5 63 
19 and20 15 1 6 6 0 0 27 
21 and22 32 23 19 5 0 1 80 
23 and24 86 79 4 6 0 175 
25 17 38 41 15 1 4 117 
26 81 14 15 7 1 3 138 
1977 1 1 0 0 0 4 6 
surface 
1980 0 1 6 6 0 3 16 
surface 
1984 3 0 1 1 0 3 8 
surface 
TOTAL 1379 
140 
Table A1.17: St. John's Harbour 5 Flakes by Type and Location 
Unit ...... Secondary Tertiary Unidentified TOTAL % r UJ.J.J.<U,Y 
1 1 34 4 19 58 4% 
2 0 9 1 11 21 2% 
3 0 12 2 23 37 3% 
4and5 0 16 2 34 52 4% 
6 0 6 1 12 19 1% 
7 and8 0 54 10 109 173 13% 
9 and 10 1 17 4 48 70 5% 
11 0 11 2 23 36 3% 
12 0 3 0 9 12 1% 
13 and 14 1 38 10 122 171 12% 
15 and 16 0 24 3 73 100 7% 
17 and 18 0 13 3 47 63 5% 
19 and20 2 10 1 14 27 2% 
21 and221 1 19 1 59 80 6% 
23 and24 1 47 6 121 175 13% 
25 1 47 4 65 117 8% 
26 2 40 3 93 138 10% 
1977 swface 1 1 0 4 6 0% 
1980 surface 1 4 0 11 16 1% 
1984 swface 0 3 0 5 8 0% 
TOTAL 12 408 57 902 1379 
% 1% 30% 4% 65% 100% 
1 The fieldnotes for squares 22 and 23 noted the following: "Caution should be taken in flake counts from 
the two squares because I chopped through part of 1 S/1E [Square 23] and deposited its contents into the 
1 S/OE (Square 22] bag prior to the establishment of separate square bags. Also, the As/OE [Square 22] bag 
was blown across my unit and its contents scattered across the pits - I may have picked up some flakes from 
the wrong square in the recovery process." (Fitzhugh et al. 1980). 
141 
A1.7 Discussion of St. John's Harbour 5 
St. John's Harbour 5 appears to have been a small camp site where a group ofGroswater 
people lived for a relatively short period of time while hunting sea resources. 
The site location is ideal for taking advantage of the marine resources in the area and the 
natural features of the rocky hills that the site is situated between indicates that it is also a 
sheltered area. Evidence of blubber-stained rocks in the central hearth area and throughout the 
site attest to the use of the marine resources at this location. Fitzhugh (1980) suggested that it 
may have been a winter site. 
Fitzhugh (1980) interpreted the site as having had a single occupation. The stratigraphy 
appears to have been relatively simple, with no indication of multiple use. While site features are 
few, with only one house appearing to have been present, as indicated by the double lines of flat 
stones and central hearth area, there is a buildup of two midden areas, along with an external 
hearth, and numerous artifacts (n=476). These could suggest some length of time in occupation 
or reoccupation. Even if the site were reused a number of times, there does not appear to be a lot 
of mixing of features, such as two or three hearths moved around the site area, or multiple axial 
features in a small area, suggesting that the site was used in the same manner throughout the life 
of the site. Furthermore, the size ofthe site, and small number of features, suggests that the site 
could have been used only be a small number of people at any one time, perhaps a group of less 
than ten persons. 
Assuming there may have been more than one occupation of the site, the artifacts show a 
general homogeneity that suggests that the site was lived at by the same people over time. The 
artifacts found, on first inspection, do appear to resemble the Groswater culture, including raw 
142 
material use. 
Radiocarbon dates from the site also indicate that there may have been reoccupation over 
a longer period of time. When calibrated the two dates from the site are different. The older date 
at 2540 +/- 75 B.P. (SI-4825) (Calibrated to 1 sigma 2750 (2728) 2474 B.P.) And the younger 
date at 2190 +/- 70 B.P. (SI-4824) (Calibrated to 1 sigma 2327 (2296, 2270, 2176, 2172, 2153) 
2075 B.P.) (Stuiver and Reimer 1980)). Running a student's t-test shows that these two dates are 
significantly different, thus suggesting that these charcoal samples represent two different time 
uses of the site. 
There are three artifacts in the St. John's Harbour 5 collection that may be Pre-Dorset. 
These are the burin spall, and the two bifaces. However, without any other Pre-Dorset evidence 
at the site, it is possible these are artifacts have made their way to the site through other means, 
such as site scavenging. 
APPENDIX2 
MISSING ARTIFACTS FOR ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR 5, HECI-30 
At the time that this collection was retrieved from the Smithsonian in 1998 eleven 
artifacts were noted as missing, although accounted for in the original database. Subsequent 
searches have yet to locate these artifacts. 
bl A2 1 Mi . Artif: t fr St J h ' H b 5 H c· 30 Ta e . ssmg ac s om . o n s ar our e 1-. . 
' Cat.# Artifact Type Modifications Material State 
4 endblade side notched chert, black midsection 
12 knife side notched tan chert proximal 
13 biface Ramah proximal 
17 knife side notched; tan chert complete 
asymmetric 
19 endscraper chert, mottled distal 
26 biface chert, mottled distal 
28 micro blade retouched Ramah proximal 
29 endblade notched (box- chert, mottled proximal 
based) 
31 biface Ramah proximal 
40 biface chert, grey proximal 
41 biface Ramah fragment 
APPENDIX3 
GROSWATER SITES IN LABRADOR, PRE 2001 
All sites listed were compiled from the records of the Provincial Archaeology Office of the Province ofNewfoundland and 
Labrador or the records of the Smithsonian Institution. Dates were calibrated using Intercepts Method A (Stuiver et al. 1998). 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
SigmaB.P. 
1 Saglarsuk Bay 1 IlDb-04 Pre-Dorset or SC1 Not at Provincial Museum 
Groswater? Dorset NOT USED IN THIS 
(Middle); Thule; STUDY 
Inuit 
2 Brownell Point IiCx-02 Pre- sc, slab pavement is Not at Provincial Musuem 
Dorset; Groswater?; excavated possible structure NOT USED IN THIS 
Dorset (Early?); STUDY 
Inuit 
3 Nachvak Village IgCx-03 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested, 2410 +/- 60 2707 (2358) 2350 Not at Provincial Museum 
Groswater; Dorset; excavated (SI-4004) 
Late Dorset; Thule; charcoal 
Inuit? (Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
4 Jens Haven Cove IdCr-40 Maritime Archaic; sc At Provincial Museum 
2 Pre-Dorset; 1 Groswater artifact 
Groswater; Dorset; 
Inuit 
5 Kangalasirovik IdCr-21 Pre-Dorset; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Island 07 Groswater? NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
1 SC =Surface collected 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Si2maB.P. 
6 Kangalasirovik IdCr-20 Groswater; Dorset; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Island 06 Inuit 
7 Bear Island IdCr-12 Groswater? Dorset; SC, tested, At Provincial Musem 
Inuit excavated NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
8 Rose Island Site IdCr-9 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested, At Provincial Museum 
w Groswater;Dorset excavated several hundred artifacts 
OOarly and Middle) 
9 Rose Island Site Id Cr-8 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested, At Provincial Museum 
X Groswater? excavated 30+ artifacts 
10 Rose Island Site IdCr-5 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested, At Provincial Museum 
y Groswater; Dorset excavated several hundred artifacts 
early?) 
11 Rose Island Site IdCr-4 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested, 2715+/-130 At Provincial Museum 
E Groswater; Dorset excavated I-5252 several hundred artifacts 
charcoal 
(Morlan 2002) 
Tuck rejected this 
date ashe 
suspected 
contamination 
from above layer 
DATE NOT 
USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
12 Handy Island 3 IdCq-27 Pre-Dorset; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Groswater? NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
SigmaB.P. 
13 Shuldham Island IdCq-22 <Jrosvvater;I>orset SC, tested, At Provincial Museum 
09 (Middle; Late); excavated several hundred artifacts; 
Thule; Maritime complicated site to divide 
Archaic?; Recent out cultural components 
Indian (Point 
Revenge) 
14 Big Falls IcCt-2 <Jrosvvater; I>orset; SC, tested, Part at Provincial Museum 
Thule excavated 300+ artifacts recorded 
(Tuck's collection 
unaccounted for) 
15 TorrBay6 IcCr-14 Pre-I>orset? sc paved structure in At Provincial Museum 
<Jrosvvater? bedrock outcrop 3 artifacts 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
16 TorrBay4 IcCq-15 <Jrosvvater; Inuit sc midpassage At Provincial Museum 
structure vvith 14 artifacts 
central hearth 
17 Tikeratsuk West IbCp-1 Maritime Archaic; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Pre-I>orset; 
<Jrosvvater; Early 
I>orset· Inuit 
18 Garnet Point 1 IaCr-01 Pre-I>orset; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
<Jrosvvater; I>orset 
!(Early, Middle) 
19 Finger Point 4 HlCo-06 Maritime Archaic?; sc At Provincial Museum 
Pre I>orset; NOT USED IN THIS 
<Jrosvvater? STUDY 
20 <Jreen Island 6 HkCk-01 I>orset; Inuit or SC, tested At Provincial Museum 
Thule; Pre-I>orset or NOT USED IN THIS 
<Jrosvvater STUDY 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
SigmaB.P. 
21 Okak4 HjCl-04 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested At Provincial Museum 
Groswater 1 0+ Groswater artifacts 
22 Okak 1 HjCl-01 Inuit; Dorset; SC, tested Part at Provincial Museum 
(Kivalekh) Pre-Dorset; 22+ artifacts; Groswater 
Groswater artifacts not obviously 
identified 
23 Nuasomak2 HiCl-01 Pre-Dorset; sc 2900 +/- 90 B.P. 3208 (3056, 3054, round mid- Not at Provincial Museum 
Groswater (Beta-25197) 3000) 2886 passage tent ring; 
Charcoal hearth 
It cox 2002:3) 
24 Perry's Gulch 1 HgCi-01 Groswater sc Not at Provincial Museum 
1 artifact recorded 
25 Approach Point 2 HfCj-04 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested? Not at Provincial Museum 
Groswater 
26 Thalia Point 6 HfCi-13 Pre-Dorset; sc At Provincial Museum 
Groswater; 2 Groswater artifacts 
Intermediate Indian 
27 Thalia Point 2 HfCi-02 Maritime Archaic; SC, tested 2500 +/- 160 B.P. 2762 (2710, 2629, At Provincial Museum 
Pre-Dorset; (GSC-1381) 2617, 2562, 2542, 30 Groswater artifacts 
Groswater charcoal 2518, 2513) 2348 
!(Morlan 2002) 
28 Questlet Isles 4 HeCi-43 Groswater;Dorset SC, tested Not at Provincial Museum 
2 Groswater artifacts 
recorded 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
SiptaB.P. 
29 St. John's HeCi-30 Groswater SC, tested, 2190 +/- 70 B.P. 2347 B.P.- 1995 Axial feature with At Provincial Museum 
Harbour 5 excavated (SI-4824) B.P. paving stones; 4 7 6 artifacts and flakes 
charcoal midden; hearths 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
2779 B.P.- 2356 
2540 +/- 75 B.P. B.P. 
(SI-4825) 
charcoal 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
30 St. John's HeCi-29 Groswater sc At Provincial Museum 
Harbour04 3 artifacts 
31 St. John's HeCi-26 Groswater sc At Provincial Museum 
Harbour01 7 artifacts 
32 Black Island 5A HeCi-24 Groswater sc Not at Provincial Museum 
2 artifacts recorded 
33 Sculpin Island HeCh-10 Pre-Dorset; sc At Provincial Museum 
East5 Groswater; Dorset; 2 Groswater artifacts 
Inuit 
34 St. John's Island HeCf-26 Groswater; Maritime SC, tested Not at Provincial Museum 
03, L1 to L3 Archaic; 24 Groswater artifacts 
Undetermined recorded 
35 Marshall Island HeCf-19 Groswater sc Not at Provincial Museum 
02 11 artifacts recorded 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
SigmaB.P. 
36 St. John's Island HeCf-02 Groswater SC, tested 2645 +/- 65 (SI 2782 (2754) 2744 possible tent ring Not at Provincial Museum 
01 2990) 133 artifacts recorded-
charcoal mostly microblades 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
37 Base Island 3 HdCj-04 Groswater; sc Not at Provinical Museum 
Pre-Dorset 12 Groswater artifacts 
·recorded 
38 Base Island 1 HdCj-01 Intermediate Indian; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Groswater; Inuit 
39 Ballybrack Valley HdCi-11 Intermediate Indian; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
South3 Groswater 1 Groswater artifacts 
recorded 
40 Dog Bight L1 0 HdCh-11 Maritime Archaic; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Pre-Dorset; 1 Groswater artifacts 
Groswater;Dorset recorded 
41 Dog Bight L09 HdCh-09 Maritime Archaic; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Pre-Dorset; 2 Groswater artifacts 
Groswater recorded 
42 Dog Bight LOS HdCh-05 Pre-Dorset; sc, 3 house structures Not at Provincial Museum 
Groswater excavated reported with 17 artifacts recorded 
midpassages and 
hearths but 
unclear whether 
associated with 
Pre Dorset or 
Groswater 
componenet 
42 Kangekukuluk HcCk-04 Pre-Dorset; sc Not at Provincial Museum 
Island 1 Groswater· Dorset 6 artifacts reported .... 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. 
Number Activity 
44 Tinigivik Hill 2 HcCi-07 Groswater sc 
45 Skull Island 05 HcCg-08 Pre-Dorset; sc 
Groswater; Thule 
46 Big Island 1 HbCl-03 Groswater SC, tested, 
(Voisey's Bay 1) excavated 
47 High Kamarsuk HbCj-04 Maritime Archaic; sc 
Pre-Dorset; 
Groswater; 
Intermediate Indian; 
Thule; Inuit 
48 Cape Little HbCi-3 Maritime Archaic; sc 
Intermediate Indian; 
Pre-Dorset; 
Groswater 
49 House Harbour 2 HbCg-03 Groswater; Dorset SC, tested 
(Middle) 
Reported Dates Calibrated Date 
B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Si2maB.P. 
2075 +/- 85 (SI- 2149 (2038, 2027, 
5830) 2006) 1929 
charcoal 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
House Features 
structure with 
stone pavement; 
hearth 
2 roughly parallel 
rows of flat slabs 
- suggestive of a 
midpassage 
structural features 
but unclear 
whether 
associated with 
the Groswater or 
Middle Dorset 
comoonents 
Collection Notes 
At Provincial Museum 
1 artifact and 3 flakes 
At Provincial Museum 
flakes and shatter 
At Provincial Museum 
30 artifacts 
At Provincial Museum 
5 artifacts 
At Provincial Museum 
41 artifacts 
At Provincial Museum 
23 artifacts and flakes 
recorded 
-V1 0 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features CoUection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Si2maB.P. 
50 Jaeger Island HbCf-01 Pre-Dorset; SC, tested? House structures Part at Provincial Museum 
Groswater; Dorset; butSite Record 4+artifacts 
Inuit Form unclear as 
to which culture 
they are 
associated 
51 Solomon Island 2 GlCe-06 Groswater sc, 1930 +/- 95 (SI- 1989 (1875) 1737 deflated hearth At Provincial Museum 
excavated 5831) 26 artifacts 
charcoal and soil 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
52 Flower's Bay 2 GlCe-04 Maritime Archaic; sc At Provincial Museum 
Intermediate Indian; 2 artifacts 
Groswater 
53 Flower's Bay 1 GlCe-03 Intermediate Indian; sc At Provincial Museum 
Groswater 1 artifact 
54 Broomfield GkCd-01 Intermediate Indian; sc At Provincial Museum 
Groswater 2 artifacts 
55 Napatalik 1 GjCc-13 Groswater? sc, Not at Provincial Museum 
excavated 3 artifacts and flakes 
reported 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
56 Island North of GjCc-09 Groswater?; Inuit? sc At Provincial Musem; 3 
Napatalik artifacts and flakes 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
57 Napatalik North 2 GjCc-08 Groswater sc 2 mid-passage At Provincial Museum 
houses; cache pit; 34 artifact; flakes not 
rock feature reviewed t;; 
-
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Si2maB.P. 
58 Napatalik 3 GjCc-04 Groswater? SC, tested 2 artifacts and flakes 
eported 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
59 Reef Island 2 GjCb-04 Groswater sc Not at Provincial Museum 
13 artifacts reported 
60 Tickle Arichat 2 GhBw-04 Groswater; sc At Provincial Museum 
Intermediate Indian 9 artifacts; flakes not 
reviewed 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Si2maB.P. 
61 Postville GfBw-04 Groswater; PE?; sc, 2975 +/-70 3318 (3204, 3192, remains of2 clear Part at Provincial Museum 
Pentecostal Intermediate Indian? excavated (SI-2989) 3161,3146,3142, structures with 1200+ artifacts; flakes not 
charcoal, 3086,3082)3002 axial features, reviewed 
nitration box hearths; 2 
pretreatment more mid passage 
(Fitzhugh, structures; 3 
personal individual box 
communication; hearth features; 2 
Morlan 2002) middens 
REJECTED as 
too early for the 
site based on 
typology 
DATE NOT 2348 (2331) 2159 
USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
2339%(2306, 2235, 
2275 +/65 2207,2192,2183) 
(SI-3359) 2149 
charcoal 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication; 
Morlan 2002) 
2230 +/- 65 
(SI-3560) 
charcoal 
(Morlan 2002) 
62 Webeck Harbour GfBm-01 Groswater; Recent SC, tested At Provincial Museum 
1 Indian (Point 4 artifacts; flakes not 
Revenge): Euronean reviewed ~ 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Sie:ma B.P. 
63 Red Rock Point 2 GeBk-02 Groswater (late) sc, 2200 +/- 120 2345 (2298, 2267' hearth Part at Provincial Museum 
excavated (SI 875) 2177, 2170, 2156) 26 artifacts and 393 flakes 
charcoal 2011 noted; only 1 at Museum 
!(Morlan 2002) 
64 Monument Point GcBi-18 Maritime Archaic SC, tested, Not at Provincial Museum 
1 (Rattlers Bight excavated? NOT USED IN THIS 
Phase); Groswater? STUDY 
65 East Pompey GcBi-12 Groswater; I>orset? SC, tested, 2490 +/- 160 2756 (2708, 2631, Not at Provinical Museum 
Island 1 excavated (GSC 1367) 2614,2585,2539, 425 artifacts and 5520 
charcoal 2528, 2503) 2347 flakes reported 
(Morlan 2002) 
2620 +/-70 2779 (2751) 2736 
(Beta-52072) 
charcoal 
!(Morlan 2002) 
66 Shell Island 1 GcBi-11 Recent Indian (Point SC, tested, Not at Provincial Musem 
Revenge); excavated NOT USED IN THIS 
Groswater?· Historic STUDY 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Si2Dla B.P. 
67 Rattler's Bight GcBi-07 Maritime Archaic; SC, tested, 2720+/-125 2951 (2836, 2833, possible !At Provincial Museum 
(Buxhall) Groswater excavated (SI-930) 2783) 2747 dwelling; hearth 80 artifacts plus large 
charcoal quantity of micro blades; 
(Morlan 2002) flakes not reviewed 
2255 +/-55 2343 (2324, 2322, 
(SI-931) 2313,2217, 2212) 
charcoal 2156 
(Morlan 2002) 
1960 +/- 80 1993 (1919, 1912, 
(SI-2147) 1897) 1822 
bone collagen 
(Morlan 2002) 
DATE NOT 
USED IN THIS 
STUDYdueto 
problems dating 
marine mammal 
bone 
68 Ticoralak 5 GbBn-07 Groswater (late) SC, tested, 2400 +/- 160 2739 (2357) 2210 stone slabs, Not at Provincial Museum 
excavated (GSC-1314) scattered rocks, 1 08 artifacts and 856 
charcoal possible hearth flakes reproted 
lrMorlan 2002) 
69 Ticoralak 4 GbBn-05 Groswater SC, tested small At Provincial Museum 
arrangement of 4 artifacts; flakes not 
rocks reviewed 
70 Ticoralak 3 GbBn-04 Groswater SC, tested 2340 +/- 140 2708 (2347) 2156 hearth Part at Provincial Museum 
(GSC 1217) 24 of 77 artifacts; flakes 
charcoal not reviewed; ~ !(Morlan 2002) VI 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
Sie:ma B.P. 
71 Ticoralak 2E GbBn-03 Groswater SC, tested hearth At Provincial Museum 
9 artifacts 
72 Ticoralak 2 GbBn-02 Groswater SC, tested, 2660+/- 140 2919 (2761) 2623 hearth At Provincial Museum 
excavated (GSC 1179, 20 artifacts; flakes not 
CMC 315) reviewed 
charcoal 
!(Morlan 2002) 
73 Ticoralak 1 GbBn-01 Groswater, SC, tested 1850 +/- 60 (Beta conical cache At Provincial Museum 
Intermediate Indian 22401) pits; 4 structures flakes not reviewed 
charcoal with mid-passage 
(Morlan 2002) features, hearths, 
Date is from the pits, fire cracked 
Intermediate rocks (see 
Indian context Fitzhugh 1989 for 
DATE NOT more 
USEDINTIDS information) 
STUDY 
74 George Island 1 GbBh-1 Groswater SC, tested Oval tent walls Not at Provincial Museum 
with rocks nearly 
touching, central 
hearth, two large 
rocks serving as 
supports or 
anchors; small 
cache features 
75 Black Island FkBc-2 Palaeoeskimo (Late SC, tested 1910 +/- 100 At Provincial Museum 
Grady Harbour 2 Groswater or early (Beta 56247) 2 artifacts 
Middle Dorset) charcoal NOT USED IN TIDS 
(Morlan 2002) STUDY 
Site Name Borden Cultural Affiliation Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated Date House Features Collection Notes 
Number Activity B.P. Ranges and 
Averages -1 
SigmaB.P. 
76 Black Tickle 1 FiAw-2 Groswater SC, tested 1840+/-80 (Beta Remains of one Part at Provicial Museum 
22403) or more houses; small microblade 
"date appears too slabs of fire- fragments and flakes 
recent for burned rock 
Groswater and 
may have resulted 
from 
contamination 
from natural 
charcoal" (P AO -
Site Record 
Form) 
DATE NOT 
USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
77 Square Isalnds 1 FeAw-1 Groswater SC, tested At Provincial Museum 
3 artifacts; flakes not 
reviewed 
78 Battle Harbour 1 FbAv-1 Groswater;I>orset SC, tested At Provincial Museum 
(early Middle); 9 artifacts 
European 
79 I>eer Island 1 FaAw-11 Groswater; Inuit sc At Provincial Museum 
1 artifact 
80 Mavco EkBc-33 Palaeoeskimo SC, tested? Not at Provincial Museum 
(Groswater?) NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
81 Wrinkle EjBe-20 Groswater; I>orset SC, tested? Part at Provincial Museum 
Middle) 18+ artifacts 
82 Schooner Cove EiBe-1 Groswater; Basque; SC, tested Not at Provincial Museum 
Point (Schooner European 
~ Cove 1) 
APPENDIX4 
EARLY DORSET SITES IN LABRADOR, PRE 2001 
All sites listed were compiled from the records of the Provincial Archaeology Office of the Province ofNewfoundland and 
Labrador or ·the records of the Smithsonian Institution. Dates were calibrated using Intercepts Method A (Stuiver et al. 1998). 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Aftuiation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
-1 Si21Da B.P. 
1 Home Island 2 JbDb-1 Dorset (Early or set, possible hold Not at Provincial 
Middle) tested down rocks; flat Museum 
slabs probably NOT USED IN THIS 
part of paving; STUDY 
navedarea 
2 Martin Bay 5 JaDc-5 Dorset (Early?) SC, tested sod and rock Not at Provincial 
winter structure, Museum 
semi NOT USED IN THIS 
subterranean STUDY 
3 Avayalik JaDb-10 Dorset (Early, sc, 2670+/-90 (SI- 2852 (2770) midden; Part at Provincial 
Island 1 Middle, Late) tested, 4001) 2744 structures; Museum 
excavated walrus bone caches; faunal 2000+ artifacts 
(Fitzhugh, preservation 
personal 
communication) 
DATE NOT 
USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
Due to problems 
dating marine 
mammal bone 
1 SC = Surface Collected 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Affiliation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Sigma B.P. 
4 North IkDa-08 Dorset (Early, sc midden; surface Not at Provincial 
Aulatsivik 4 Middle, Late) slabs and rock Museum 
structures; 
sod/house 
depression 
(likely all 
Middle Dorset 
associated) 
5 Glass Bottom lkDa-07 Dorset SC, tested slab structures Not at Provincial 
Cove 2, North (Early/Middle) and house Museum 
Aulatsivik 3 depressions; NOT USED IN THIS 
faunal STUDY 
preservation 
6 Helga River ljCx-2 Dorset (Early, SC, tested Not at Provincial 
Middle, Late) Museum 
3 artifacts reported 
7 Brownell Point IiCx-02 Pre- sc, slab pavement Not at Provincial 
Dorset; excavated is possible Musuem 
Groswater?; structure NOT USED IN THIS 
Dorset (Early?); STUDY 
Inuit 
8 Peabody Point liCw-28 Dorset (Early), sc, midden At Provincial Museum 
2 Thule, Inuit tested, 77 Early Dorset artifacts 
excavated 
9 Amiktok IiCw-11 Dorset (Early) sc Not at Provincial 
Island 1 Museum 
57 artifacts reported 
10 Abbate River liCv-10 Dorset (Early or SC, tested possible mid- Not at Provincial 
1 Middle); Inuit passage Museum 
structures NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Affiliation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Si2111a B.P. 
11 Komaktorvik IhCw-1 Dorset (Early, sc, 2515 +/-70 2745 (2711, three shallow At Provincial Museum 
Middle, Late); tested, SI-3896 2626, 2621) sod house 268 artifacts and flakes 
Thule; Inuit excavated charcoal 2385 depressions 
(Morlan 2002) interpreted as 
semi-
2495 +/-70 2470 (2709, subterranean 
SI-3897 2630,2616, houses; midden; 
charcoal 2580,2541, pits 
(Morlan 2002) 2526, 2509) 
2362 
2110 +/-70 2295 (2110, 
Beta-33049 2079, 2069) 
charcoal and sand 1954 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
12 Rose Island IdCr-9 Pre-Dorset; sc, At Provincial Museum 
SiteW <Jroswater;Dorset tested, several hundred artifacts 
(Early and excavated 
Middle) 
13 Rose Island IdCr-06 Palaeoeskimo sc, 2485 +/- 185 B.P. 2772 (2708, At Provincial Museum 
Site QBand2 (Early); Dorset tested, charcoal 2632,2612, 
(Early [Band 2], excavated (Morlan 2002) 2590,2537, 
Middle) 2531, 2493) 
2340 
14 Shuldham IdCq-35 Dorset (Early) sc, two tent rings Part at Provincial 
Island 14 tested, and caribou Museum 
excavated blind possibly 450 artifacts reported 
associated 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Affiliation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Sigma B.P. 
15 Handy Island IdCq-26 Dorset (Early) sc flat slabs - Not at Provincial 
2 likely a Museum 
structure 26 artifacts 
16 Shuldham IdCq-19 Dorset (Early) sc, threestnlctures At Provincial Museum 
Island 6 tested, with flat 68 artifacts 
excavated pavement, one 
with a central 
passage or axial 
feature 
17 Torr Bay 3 IcCq-07 Dorset (Early)?; sc At Provincial Museum 
Pre-Dorset?; Inuit 21 artifacts 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
18 Tikeratsuk lbCp-1 Maritime Archaic; sc Not at Provincial 
West Pre-Dorset; Museum 
Groswater; Early 
Dorset· Inuit 
19 Gamet Point 1 IaCr-1 Pre-Dorset; sc Not at Provincial 
Groswater;Dorset Museum 
(Early, Middle) 
20 Grubb Point 2 IaCp-6 Pre-Dorset; sc possible house Not at Provincial 
Dorset (Early) depression Museum 
21 Anchorstock HkCk-3 Maritime Archaic; sc, possible Not at Provincial 
Bay2 Pre-Dorset; tested, rectangular Museum 
Dorset (Early) excavated stnlcture 
22 Green Island 1 HjCk-02 Dorset (Early? SC, tested At Provincial Museum 
Middle?); Inuit 5 artifacts 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Affiliation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Si2JD.a B.P. 
23 Opingiviksuak HiCj-03 Dorset (Early?) sc At Provincial Museum 
Island 2 4 artifacts 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
24 Opingiviksuak HiCj-02 Dorset (Early or sc Not at Provincial 
Island 1 Middle) Museum 
15 artifacts reported 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
25 Iluvektalik HhCk-02 Dorset (Early) sc At Provincial Museum 
Island 2 30 artifacts 
26 Iluvektalik HhCk-01 Dorset (Early) sc, 2845 +/- 60 B.P. 3060 (2950) an almost At Provincial Museum 
Island 1 tested, (SI 2510) 2868 completely 1104 artifacts 
excavated from a mixture of eroded winter 
fat and charcoal house; no mid-
(Morlan 2002) passage 
Rejected because structure or 
anomalously early entrance 
DATE NOT passage found; 
USED IN THIS midden; was 
STUDY faunal 
preservation 
27 Thalia Point Hft:i-07 Dorset (Early) sc Not at Provincial 
South End 1 Museum 
28 Orton Island 1 Hft:g-1 Maritime Archaic; sc possible Not at Provincial 
Pre-Dorset; structure Museum 
Dorset (Early?) NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Affiliation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Sie;ma B.P. 
29 Questlet Isles HeCi-43 Groswater; Dorset sc, oval/circular Not at Provincial 
4 (Early or Middle) excavated structure with Museum 
clear pavement 96 Dorset artifacts 
and axial reported 
feature NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
30 Chronicle HeCf-14 Dorset (Early) sc line ofboulders At Provincial Museum 
Island 9 8 artifacts and flakes 
31 Chronicle HeCf-13 Dorset (Early) sc possible hearth At the Provincial 
Island 8 feature and Museum 
remains of tent 6 artifacts and flakes 
feature; two 
clusters of 
cobbles, 
generally linear 
maybe 
structures/ 
possible mid 
passage 
32 Chronicle HeCf-12 Dorset (Early) sc boulders may At Provincial Museum 
Island 7 mark amid- 5 artifacts and flakes 
passage or tent 
wall 
33 Chronicle HeCf-11 Pre Dorset; sc At Provincial Museum 
Island 6 Dorset (Early) 6 artifacts 
34 Chronicle HeCf-10 Dorset (Early) sc circular tent At Provincial Museum 
Island 5 ring and nearby 15 artifacts 
cache pit 
35 Chronicle HeCf-7 Dorset (Early) sc Not at Provincial 
Island 2 Museum 
6 artifacts 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House CoUection Notes 
Number Afr.Iiation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Sigma B.P. 
36 Henry Island 1 HdCh-30 Dorset (Early) sc, slab hearth, At Provincial Museum 
excavated with central 18 artifacts and flakes 
depression, 
possibly part of 
an axial 
structure 
37 Dog Island- HdCh-17 Dorset (Early), sc, 2680 +/-70 2849 (2775) unbordered Not at Provincial 
West SpurL5 Pre-Dorset excavated SI-2978 2749 central passage Museum 
charcoal, nitration pavement of 71 artifacts 
pretreatment rounded rocks 
(Fitzhugh, 
personal 
communication) 
38 DogBightL3 HdCh-03 Dorset (Early) sc, 2455 +/-75 B.P. 2715 (2691, hearth At Provincial Museum 
tested, (SI 2522) 2673,2487, 494 artifacts 
excavated charcoal 2479,2471) 
(Morlan 2002) 2354 
2400 +/- 70 B.P. 2707 (2357) 
(SI 2153) 2347 
charcoal 
(Morlan 2002) 
39 Koliktalik 13 HdCg-53 Dorset (Early) sc Not at Provincial 
Museum 
3 artifacts 
40 Uiraluk Island HdCg-50 Dorset (Early) sc Not at Provincial 
2 Museum 
4 artifacts 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Affiliation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Sigma B.P. 
41 Imilikuluk 1 HdCg-29 Dorset (Early?) sc Not at Provincial 
Museum 
20 artifacts 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
42 Youngs HdCg-10 Dorset (Early)? sc Not at Provincial 
Harbour 3 Museum 
10 artifacts 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
43 Ford Harbour HcCh-21 Dorset (Early and SC, tested possible sod Not at Provincial 
4 Middle) house structure Museum 
below Middle 26 artifacts 
Dorset winter 
house; was 
faunal 
preservation 
44 Mount Pickle HcCh-17 Dorset (Early) sc cobbles and At Provincial Museum 
Harbour 1 slabs 27 artifacts 
interpreted as 
possible 
structure - no 
axial feature 
45 Nukasusutok HcCh-14 Dorset (Early and sc, 1 Early Dorset At Provincial Museum 
12 Middle) tested, axial feature 140+ artifacts and flakes 
excavated and possibly 2 
others; hearths 
2 
Site Name Borden Cultural Arch. Reported Dates Calibrated House Collection Notes 
Number Affiliation Activity B.P. Date Ranges Features 
and Averages 
- 1 Sigma B.P. 
46 Humbys Island HcCf-04 Dorset sc, At Provincial Museum 
4 (Early/Middle); tested, 1 0 Dorset artifacts and 
Pre-Dorset excavated flakes 
NOT USED IN TillS 
STUDY 
47 Humbys Island HcCf-01 Dorset (Early/ sc axial sturcture At Provincial Museum 
1 Middle) 20 artifacts 
NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
48 Multa Island 1 GkCb-1 Maritime Archaic; sc several rocks in Not at Provincial 
Dorset (Early/ alignment Museum 
Middle); Inuit (north-south); 1 artifact and flakes 
slab hearth area NOT USED IN TIDS 
STUDY 
49 Napatalik GjCc-10 Dorset (Early)? Surveyed Hearth No Collections made 
North 4 only NOT USED IN THIS 
STUDY 
APPENDIX5 
DATES COMPARED TO A FIXED AGE AS A TEST FOR 
CONTEMPORANEITY 
A) Given one radiocarbon date and a fixed age: 
(1) 1400 B.P. +/- 100 and (2) 1200 B.P. 
B) Is the difference between the radio carbon date and the fixed age a true difference, 
or can it be accounted for by statistical error? 
C) Statistical Hypothesis: 
Ifo: ll = 1200 B.P. 
HI: ll * 1200 B.P. 
D) Region of rejection: For a two tailed test at oc = 0.05, and with infinite degrees of 
freedom, 10.05 = 1.96. 
E) The Student's t ratio is calculated: 
t = (1400- 1200) + 100 = 2.00 
F) Since t = 2.00 > 10.05 = 1.96, Hypothesis0 is rejected. 
G) Thus it can be concluded that the difference between the radiocarbon date and the 
fixed age is significant, and that there is no potential for contemporaneity. 
From Erwin 
(1995:136)