Return to Hopedale: Excavations at Anniowaktook Island, Hopedale, Labrador

Re

sea

rc

h R

ep

or

t

† 112 Locust Lane Court Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 [[email protected]]

Abstract. The Hopedale region in Labra-dor, Canada has a rich history of human activity. Some of the earliest archaeological research on Inuit of this region was conduc-ted by American archaeologist Junius Bird in 1935; however, few researchers have returned to the region to expand on his work. This paper provides a summary of recent exca-vations conducted at an eighteenth century Inuit sod house settlement Bird identified on Anniowaktook Island (GgCi-02) just east of Hopedale. The region was considered a cen-tral trading area among Inuit. Excavations were expected to identify items indicative of this trade with the increasing prevalence of European traders along the coast. Instead, artifact assemblages at Anniowaktook reveal a smaller than expected collection of trade items, and a surprisingly high density of metal materials. The types and quantity of materials amassed suggest Anniowaktook Inuit were making different consumption choices to acquire materials for tool manu-facture which were not traditionally part of the trade system.

Résumé. La ville et la région d’Hopedale au Labrador, Canada, ont un riche passé d’occupation humaine comme l’a démontré une étude archéologique dirigée par Junius Bird en 1935 sur la population Inuit de cette région. Cependant, peu de chercheurs y étaient retournés pour poursuivre ce que Bird avait entrepris. Le présent travail expose les résultats des fouilles menées récemment dans un village Inuit du 18ème siècle, dans l’île Anniowaktook (GgCi-02), à l’est d’Hope-dale, où Bird avait identifié des maisons de tourbe (sod houses). Puisque la région

était censée avoir été un centre commercial important, on pensait que les fouilles aide-raient à identifier des objets prouvant l’exis-tence de ce commerce et surtout à montrer la prédominance des marchands européens tout le long de la côte. Au contraire, la col-lection d’artefacts retrouvés à Anniowaktook contient très peu d’objets ayant servi au com-merce, mais plutôt une quantité surprenante d’objets en métal. La diversité et la quantité des métaux retrouvés suggèrent que les Inuit d’Anniowaktook choisissaient d’acquérir des matériaux pour la fabrication d’outils qui ne faisaient pas partie du réseau commercial traditionnel.

In 1935, American archaeologist Junius Bird visited Hopedale in

northeast Canada as part of a two-month survey of the Labrador coast between Oakes Bay and Eskimo Island. As one of the earliest archaeological investigations in the region, Bird’s survey was an exten-sive study of Inuit life. He examined five sites and excavated 45 of the 88 Inuit sod houses he found in the region, providing architectural and archaeological evi-dence for Thule Inuit occupation in Lab-rador. His work established the culture history of the region and helped inspire much of the current research on Labra-dor. One of his most significant contribu-tions to date was finding that over time,

The Return to Hopedale: Excavations at Anniowaktook Island, Hopedale, Labrador

Beatrix Arendt†

Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 37: 302–330 (2013)

Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 37 (2013)

THE RETuRn TO HOPEdALE • 303

Inuit living along the coast shifted away from smaller, single-family dwellings to larger, rectangular houses with raised platforms and multiple lamp stands (Bird 1945). However, few researchers have returned to the Hopedale region to expand on the initial work by Bird (Arendt 2011; Kaplan 1983) and little of this research has been published to date.

The following is a review of an archaeological survey conducted from 2007–2009 of one site first examined by Bird—Anniowaktook Island (GgCi-02)—and how it fits into a coastal trade model where Inuit traveled south to trade with Europeans, then returned north to trade with other Inuit (Kaplan 1983, 1985). The goal of this review is to provide further documentation of a period of Inuit history that underwent dramatic changes with the arrival of Europeans and the introduction of trade. Following a brief summary of the culture history of the area, I provide an overview of the architecture, faunal materials, and arti-fact assemblages identified during the 2007–2009 excavations and compare it to other eighteenth century Inuit sod house settlements that exhibit evidence for trade. While the architectural fea-tures and faunal assemblage resemble many other historic Inuit sod houses along the northern and southern Labra-dor coast, the Anniowaktook site stands as an alternative to Inuit consumption patterns exhibited at other eighteenth

century Labrador Inuit houses. It reveals that Anniowaktook Inuit were consum-ing fewer trade items such as tobacco pipes and beads than expected. Instead, Inuit living at Anniowaktook consumed large amounts of metal, suggesting some Inuit chose to consume manufacturing materials over symbolic or decorative items. This research highlights that different consumption patterns exist

throughout Labrador during the eigh-teenth century.

The Movement of Inuit and GoodsAbout 800 years ago, Inuit migrated eastward from northwest Alaska, displac-ing earlier dorset Paleo-Eskimo and the Innu who lived along the Labrador coast (Friesen and Arnold 2008; McCullough 1989; McGhee 2007; Morrison 1981). Known as the Thule, this prehistoric group traveled east to take advantage of expanding bowhead whale populations in the central Canadian Arctic, create new and better trade routes to access valuable metals including copper and iron further east, and to avoid rising social pressures, increased warfare, and territoriality in the Bering Strait region (Maxwell 1985:252; McGhee 2007; Park 1997; Sabo and Jacobs 1980). With each subsequent migration, subtle changes occurred regarding houses, tool con-struction, subsistence practices, and social organization.

Archaeologists believe that the Thule expansion along the Canadian Arctic moved south along the eastern Canadian coasts of Hudson Bay and along the Greenland coast, eventually arriving in northern Labrador (Fitzhugh 1972:132). There is some debate over exactly when Thule occupied northern Labrador, but the majority of research indicates that the Thule appear in the Killinek region after A.d. 1250 and expand down the Labrador coast, displacing or absorbing Late dorset people and Point Revenge Innu culture (Fitzhugh 1994, 2009; Kaplan 1983, 1985). Most Thule groups occupied the north coast, but their ability to adapt and exploit their new surroundings allowed the Thule to colo-nize as far south as the Hopedale region by the 1550s (Auger 1989; Barkham 1980; Fitzhugh 1981:601; Jordan 1974;

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 37 (2013)

304 • AREndT

Whitridge and Woollett 2008; Wool-lett 2010). However, radiocarbon dates from eight sites along the Labrador coast including Staffe Island in northern Labrador and Sandwich Bay in southern Labrador suggest a series of chronologi-cal groupings that point to Thule occu-pation beginning around A.d. 1500. This later yet rapid migration into Lab-rador may be a result of Inuit traveling southward to contact Europeans who were beginning to explore the coast (Ramsden and Rankin 2010, 2013).

Originally, Thule lived in small, single-family sod houses with a single sleeping platform, central hearth, and an interior meat cache. This pattern changed by the seventeenth

century when Thule Inuit

occupied larger, multi-family houses. Explanations for why Inuit settlements shifted to larger sod houses were pri-marily based on climate and ecological explanations, versus those that rely more heavily on cultural and historical expla-nations.

Archaeologist Peter Schlederman (1971, 1976) argued that the shift to larger households evolved as an adap-tation among Inuit living in the Arctic to environmental stresses. Changing climatic conditions during the late sev-enteenth and eighteenth centuries led to a period of decline in whales, a critical resource for the ancestral Thule popu-lation. The drop in dependable whale hunting would have created serious pro-visioning problems for less productive households (Woollett 2007:73). A shift to a smaller food source such as seals placed significant pressure on households with less accomplished hunters, making those households more susceptible to starvation. due to food sharing practices among many Inuit groups throughout the Arctic, larger communal households would experience greater sharing of

food and other resources than those with single-family units. Sharing resources offset the inadequacies of limited fuel supplies; therefore evidence of com-munal houses indicates a decrease in resources and an increased reliance on the group (Schlederman 1976:35–36).

Other explanations test whether sources of ecological stress motivated social and cultural change. Barnett Rich-ling (1993) reconsidered the influence of climate change and proposed that short-term variability in ice freeze-ups and break-ups added to economic stress. Frozen seas directly impacted whale migration patterns, and the resulting variability made whale hunting rela-tively unpredictable. Pooling resources, employing a food-sharing network, and relocating winter settlements to inner islands to be closer to additional resources, such as seal and caribou, may have been a strategy to reduce stress. However, research conducted by James Woollett (2003, 2007) using archaeo-logical and historical ecology data show that the use of communal houses did not coincide with a period of colder temperatures and increased sea ice; instead, Labrador experienced a period of relatively stable climate. Further, Inuit continued to exploit diverse ecosystems and experience reasonably stable and productive subsistence economies. Wool-lett’s analysis of faunal remains at uivak Point and Oakes Bay in northern Labra-dor reveals that Inuit were not incorpo-rating more land mammals, fish, or birds as expected, but rather Inuit continued to pursue seal hunting as well as whale hunting at a more modest level (Woollett 2003:639, 2007:81).

Alternative to the ecological models, scholars argued a change to Inuit social organization influenced changes in household patterns (Jordan 1977, 1978;



Taylor 1974). Ethnohistorical evidence identifies senior Inuit rising to positions of clear authority as boat owners and trading captains (Taylor 1974). With the rise of European traders in the seven-teenth century a new market emerged where Inuit experienced greater acces-sibility to desired trade goods.

The most prevalent argument regard-ing trade as a factor for the rise of com-munal houses along the Labrador coast is Susan Kaplan’s (1983) work on eco-nomic motivations for changes to prehis-toric and historic Inuit settlements. She used ethnographic and archaeological data that suggested the presence of long-distance trade networks maintained by prominent Inuit traders (Kaplan 1983). Rarely did Europeans venture north for fear of being iced in during the winter, which led to a concentration of French and English settlements along the southern route in the Strait of Belle Isle region, Hamilton Inlet, and Chateau Bay. despite the distance, northern Labrador Inuit household assemblages reveal that Inuit still accessed and consumed a con-siderable amount of European materials (Fay 2011, 2012; Whitridge and Woollett 2008; Woollett 2003, 2010). due to lim-ited contact with Europeans and rising Inuit demand for European goods, Inuit leaders who were boat-owners took on this new role as traders (Kaplan 1985:62). These traders connected dis-parate households and settlements into single economic units and established a trade network along the Labrador coast (Kaplan and Woollett 2000). The desire for goods did not dissipate; rather their continued migration included a formal trade system where Inuit trav-eled south to acquire European goods then returned north to trade rare goods (Kaplan and Woollett 2000; Whitridge 2008; Stopp 2008:11). These Inuit trad-

ers organized networks of kin along the coast to access European trade sites more easily and accumulate more wealth through European trade goods (Jordan 1977; Kaplan 1983, 1985; Taylor 1974).

German Moravian missionaries arrived in the midst of this transition in the late-eighteenth century establish-ing their first three missions at nain (est. 1771), Okkak (est. 1776) and Hopedale (est. 1782) with the hopes of bringing salvation and civilization to Inuit. The Moravians chose to establish the Hopedale mission a little further south from the first mission in nain to reach Inuit traveling south to trade with Europeans. Further, Hopedale was situated next to Avertôk, a large Inuit settlement. Avertôk was thought to be a meeting location for northern Inuit who sought to trade for European goods with Inuit returning from the south. The Moravians described the area as material-istically affluent, considering it the Inuit equivalent to London or Paris (Kennedy 2009:29). Given this description and its central location in Labrador, the collec-tion at Anniowaktook was expected to exhibit an array of European trade mate-rials. However, the archaeological record from two historic Inuit households on Anniowaktook reveals few European trade materials. A closer examination of the Anniowaktook archaeological mate-rial stands as an example of the material differences present in Labrador during the eighteenth century.

Anniowaktook (Big Island)

Activity AreaJunius Bird conducted preliminary investigations at Anniowaktook Island in 1935 and identified a four-house settlement on the southeastern side of the island (Figures 1 and 2). Bird did


306 • AREndT

Figure 1. Map of Labrador with the location of Anniowaktook.



limited excavations outside House 3, a sub-rectangular, single room structure surrounded by approximately 1.5 m high walls and built against the side of the hill, using the bedrock to serve as the western-most wall. Bird reported exca-vating a 9.1 x 4.6 m area of the midden in a single level, collecting a sample of artifacts (Bird 1945:131). Since Bird’s primary interest was in reconstructing

traditional Inuit life, he collected a small representative sample of European arti-facts. While he collected all traditional Inuit artifacts such as soapstone lamps, he collected only 25 European artifacts, including ceramic tile and brick, and noted the absence of beads and trade goods. Based on this assemblage, Bird determined the site was occupied in the late eighteenth and early nine-

Figure 2. Plan map of Anniowaktook settlement based on Junius Bird’s map (Bird 1934; redrawn by author).


308 • AREndT

teenth century, during the Moravian’s tenure (Bird 1945:159). Susan Kaplan’s (1983:450) analysis during an extensive survey of the Labrador coast questioned his assertion, suggesting that the site has an earlier date based on Bird’s physical descriptions of the artifacts.

Given this discrepancy of the site’s occupation period, additional excava-tion would determine whether the site exhibits evidence of contact with Moravian missionaries and the degree to which Inuit participated in trade. Two houses were excavated, House 1 and House 4. As the largest house at the site, House 1 measures 10.6 x 4 m and has a 9 m entrance tunnel with a southerly orientation and cold trap, common ele-ments for fall and winter houses. Only the western third of House 1 was exca-vated, since previously undocumented excavations had been conducted in the northeastern section of the house. This area exhibited straight edges and the floor slabs were removed revealing ster-ile, white sand (Figure 3).

In addition, half of the midden located outside of the entrance tunnel was also excavated to serve as a com-parative sample to that found inside the house. The decision not to excavate the entrance tunnel was based on excava-tions at other eighteenth century Inuit sod houses that found entrance tunnel deposits similar in composition to the midden (Arendt 2011). As Inuit trav-eled through the tunnel they tracked discarded artifacts into the house, or carried materials to be discarded, often dropping a few on the way.

The second house excavated was slightly smaller, measuring 9 x 5 m with a 6 m entrance tunnel with a cold trap at the western end of the tunnel (Figure 4). House 4 is located northeast of House 1 and sits on a bedrock ledge overlooking

the water. A series of 1 x 1 m units were placed north-south in the interior of House 4 and east-west leading into the entryway tunnel. Because of its location along the edge of the bedrock ledge, no exterior midden was located and the entire entryway was excavated. Although they vary in size, the two houses exhib-ited many of the same architectural features seen at other eighteenth cen-tury Inuit houses along the Labrador coast including flat stone floors, central hearths, and sleeping platforms.

House 1. Three main activity areas were identified in the house. First, a raised turf shelf along the north and west house walls served as a sleeping platform that could accommodate multiple persons and possibly families. In the northwest corner of the platform rested a flat, blub-ber-stained lamp stand. Lamp stands have been used by other archaeologists to estimate the number of families in a house, as each family maintained a single lamp stand (Taylor 1974; Woollett 2007). Only one lamp stand was found in the house suggesting a single family occupied the space; however, less than half of the house was excavated and more lamp stands may be found with additional excavations. Given the house size and the length of the sleeping plat-form, it is highly likely that more than one family lived in this house.

The second activity area was adjacent to the sleeping platform and included the hearth and an interior meat cache. The cooking area consisted of a large cluster of burned stones located just south of the sleeping platform. South-west of the sleeping platform and hearth was a dug-out meat cache, sectioned off by a line of large stones. This 1.2 x 0.5 m area exhibited the highest concentration of sea and land mammal fauna inside the



house and is typical of interior storage used among many Arctic Inuit cultures.

Few artifacts were found in the house. This may have been the result of mul-tiple cleaning episodes as the majority of artifacts along with a significant amount of faunal material, fire-cracked stones, and burned stones were found in the

midden. A number of complete and broken tools and objects, including a toy soapstone lamp, iron nails, French and English ceramics, lead fragments, and glass bottle fragments were also found in the midden. While the presence of Euro-pean artifacts represents potential trade, the relatively meager collection suggests

Figure 3. Plan map of Anniowaktook House 1.


310 • AREndT

Inuit may not have been in continuous contact with Europeans or only occupied the house for a short time.

A small faunal collection also suggests a short occupation period in the late summer or fall. Over 3,497 fragments were found in the midden and 864 fragments found in the house. despite a high degree of fragmentation and

mediocre preservation, initial conclu-sions determined that seals comprised approximately 47 percent of the col-lection (House 1 nISP = 156; House 1 midden nISP = 1880). Ringed seals (Phoca hispida) were the most common seal species identified (nISP = 138). Ringed seals are the most prevalent non-migratory species in the Arctic

Figure 4: Plan map of Anniowaktook House 4.



region and considered a stable and staple resource for Inuit communities since they are hunted year round along the Labrador coast (Woollett 2003:195, 197). Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) are another valuable economic resource for Labrador Inuit, particularly during those seasons in which they migrate in very large numbers along the coast. They are commonly found at historic Labrador Inuit sod house settlements, usually comprising of 30 to 60 percent of the faunal assemblages (Woollett 2010). However, harp seals made up less than 1 percent of the total faunal assemblage from House 1 and its associated midden (nISP = 29). MnI are not calculated, however, and this number could repre-sent a single seal as juvenile males have been known to wander during foraging. Regardless, the lack of harp seals in the assemblage suggests Inuit occupation at House 1 did not extend into the fall season when harp seals migrated south ahead of the fast ice (Woollett 2010:190).

The presence of specific botanical remains and the lack of a sod roof fur-ther support a late summer or fall occu-pation. Botanical samples reveal that the majority of the plant remains from the sleeping platform were edible plants, especially crowberries that were avail-able during the summer and fall (Arendt 2011). This pattern differs from other historic botanical samples from north-ern Labrador Inuit sod houses near nain in Oakes Bay which had high densities of pine needles used for insulation during the later fall and winter (Zutter 2008).

Further, excavations revealed the house lacked a sod roof or evidence for significant architecture which would be needed to support the heavy sod. Instead, a thin level of sod above the occupation level suggests that the house was a qarmat, a house with sod walls and

a skin or canvas roof (dawson 2001; Schledermann 1976:36). The presence of two smaller post holes approximately 13 cm in diameter were found in the centre of the house and near the back wall and would have been suitable for a lightweight skin or canvas roof.

This initial investigation of House 1 reveals many features common in Inuit sod houses, such as lamp stands, hearths, sleeping platforms, and an interior meat cache. The botanical and faunal evi-dence alludes to a late summer or early fall occupation which coincides with seasonal animal migrations or Inuit trav-eling along the coast to trade. Evidence from the one half of the house suggests the presence of at least a single family. However, given the size of the house and the relatively tight distribution of the features in the western half, it is likely that similar patterns occurred in the east-ern half indicating that more than one family occupied the house. Excavations at House 4 sought to test whether similar patterns appear throughout the site.

House 4. Excavations of the smaller 9 x 5 m house revealed many features similar as those found in House 1. A thin layer of sod and the lack of significant post holes or interior architecture again suggest the roof was made of thin canvas or skin. A single, raised, 2 m long sleep-ing platform runs along the southern wall, upon which a significant amount of crowberries were found. A cold trap separated the entrance tunnel from the interior house space, which had a floor of laid flat stone. Sediment from the entrance tunnel consisted of a wet, organic loam filled with faunal material and a small sample of artifacts, similar to the deposit from the House 1 midden.

While an exterior midden and an interior meat cache were not located,


312 • AREndT

the faunal remains collected from the occupation level are similar to House 1. Again, fragmentation and preserva-tion problems limited identification. nevertheless, the majority of the faunal material found in House 4 consisted of species common in Labrador, including ringed, harbour and harp seal, caribou, bear, fox, dog, and Arctic hares (Arendt 2011:322). As with House 1, the most common class of animal found inside House 4 was seals, which constituted 23 percent from the house and midden assemblages (nISP = 444). A majority of the seals could not be identified to species; however, the limited presence of harp seals (nISP = 5) and ringed seals (nISP = 19) may support a summer to early fall occupation as both were commonly associated with open water (Boles et al. 1980; Woollett 2007:28). Additionally, the presence of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) (nISP = 4) in the assemblage appears to refine this con-clusion. Harbour seals are primarily hunted in the fall and spring as they also are commonly associated with open water to feed and pup along the shores (Boles et al. 1980; Woollett 2007:28). The relative absence of these species from this household assemblage suggests that the house was not occupied well into the fall or it was abandoned prior to the spring migration.

The few architectural differences between the two houses are linked to household size and occupation period. unlike the larger House 1 that may have housed multiple families, House 4 was likely used by a single family. House 4 appears to have a single living space with a sleeping platform and adjacent cooking area with a number of large whale bone fragments, including a ver-tebra located in the centre of the house. Surrounding the approximately 1 x 1 m

hearth was a large flat rectangular stone with remnants of burned blubber sug-gestive of lamp stands (Figure 5). In the centre of the hearth was a large, green, deteriorating piece of soapstone that Hopedale Inuit community members identified as a cooking stone. Such details offer additional insights in to the activities and the number of families in individual households.

Perhaps the most significant differ-ence was the presence of a 40 cm thick midden found above the occupation level in the southern half of House 4. This post-abandonment midden was full of shell, a variety of sea and land mammal bones, including seal, bird and dog, and a number of artifacts, includ-ing nails, iron knife blades, and an iron ulu blade. The practice of using earlier house pits as midden dumps has been identified at other eighteenth century Labrador Inuit sod house sites includ-ing the neighboring site, Avertôk (Bird 1945; Loring and Rosenmeier 2005). The House 4 midden was deposited after the house was abandoned, evidence that there were at least two separate occupa-tions at Anniowaktook.

The analogous architectural details and activity areas found in both houses reveal household patterns that align with data collected from other historic Inuit settlements throughout Labrador (Brews-ter 2008; Jordan and Kaplan 1980; Kaplan 1983; Whitridge and Woollett 2008; Wool-lett 1999, 2003, 2010). The botanical and faunal material, a post-occupation midden in House 4, and a lack of a sod roof provide independent evidence to suggest that the Anniowaktook houses had multiple yet separate occupations during the summer to late fall.

The activity areas highlight the simi-larities between the houses and to earlier Inuit household traditions. The subtle



changes of Inuit choices appear in the artifact assemblage where Inuit incor-porated foreign materials to replace traditional hunting tools or include as adornment. A closer analysis of the variety of local and foreign goods in the houses and middens can narrow the occupation period while providing clues as to how Inuit acquired, adopted, and used materials during a period of trans-formation in the eighteenth

century.

Assemblage Analysis Artifacts found in both houses exem-plify Inuit life during the eighteenth century and include tools used for hunt-ing and cooking, as well as children’s toys and decorative clothing elements. The majority of artifacts were found in middens, with only a few artifacts scattered throughout the houses. This distribution suggests Inuit living at

Anniowaktook took care to curate their tools for repeated use, and houses were kept clean of debris and broken objects. nevertheless, the artifacts found stand as clues to the specific domestic, hunt-ing, and trading activities of eighteenth century Inuit households.

domestic artifacts found in the houses include soapstone vessels and tools for clothing manufacture. Soap-stone comprised of 22 percent (n = 107) of the House 1 collection such as soap-stone lamps, pots, or vessel fragments. House 4 displayed fewer soapstone lamp and pot fragments making up only 9.6 percent of the assemblage (n = 17). Given that known soapstone sources are located near Hopedale, the lower frequency is surprising. This difference may point to either a shorter occupation, or that these objects were being replaced by metal pots.

Figure 5. Central hearth of House 4 with large fragments of bone along the east wall near the north arrow and the large slab of soapstone south of lamp stand.


314 • AREndT

Other domestic tools used for hide processing and clothing manufacture such as stone scrapers and ulu knives made with wood or bone handles and metal blades were recovered from both Anniowaktook Houses 1 and 4. Evidence for sewing was less obvious, as a thimble guard draw string found in House 1 served as the only evidence for this activ-ity (Figure 6). Few thimble guards have been found in Labrador Inuit contexts, but the find suggests that some level of refined clothing manufacture occurred on site.

The Inuit toolkit also included a wide range of locally made hunting tools including blades and projectile points. The presence of a slate end blade near a bone foreshaft on the floor of House 4, along with a quartz biface alludes to an earlier occupation where Inuit relied more heavily on stone tools for hunt-

ing. The lack of lithic debris normally associated with stone tool manufacture suggests these tools were not made here. Although the stone tool assemblage is small, the presence of these tools in con-junction with a harpoon part, snow knife fragment, sled runner and toggle for a dog sled found in House 1 demonstrates that Inuit at both houses maintained tra-ditional methods for hunting, including traveling via dog sled to hunt on the ice or to travel to new areas.

By the eighteenth century, Inuit rarely

made ground stone tools, instead they used alternative materials. With the rise of European fishermen and traders along the southern coast in the eigh-teenth century, the prevalence of metal increased and Inuit shifted from stone to metal materials to meet their hunt-ing and domestic needs. Metal did not require a similarly high degree of manu-facturing proficiency or need constant retouching. The use of metal increased dramatically throughout the contact period, and metal rapidly replaced stone in the manufacture of harpoon heads, ulu knives, and men’s knife blades (Jordan 1978:176). This shift appears quite significantly in the archaeological assemblage at Anniowaktook.

Over 51 percent of the House 1 assem-blage (n = 266) and 55 percent of the House 4 assemblage (n = 97) contained metal, some of which were modified by Inuit. Some of the iron sheet metal and strap metal1 exhibited post-manufacture modification such as refinished or cut edges, indicative of the making of blades or projectile points (Jordan 1978:176). The most common metal objects found were iron nails which, along with iron strapping, Inuit often refashioned into tools, such as end blades and points, or used to mend broken soapstone pots. Some nails were found embedded in Figure 6. Thimble guard from House 1.



wood, suggesting that the wood from boxes, barrels, or trunks was scavenged for use in the construction of houses or boats. Given that most of the nails had minimal evidence for post-manufactur-ing processing and were found in the midden, it appears that the wood and not the nails was of interest.

Other metals recovered at Annio-waktook include lead and copper. Only one percent of the House 1 (n = 6) and House 4 (n = 2) assemblages included lead objects, which were found wrapped around hooks as fishing weights, or used for decorative purposes such as charms or parka weights. This use of lead is seen in the ethnographic record from the east of Hudson Bay and ungava north of Labrador that shows Inuit women deco-rating the flap of their parka with pewter and lead ornaments (Hawkes 1916:39; Turner 2001). A small ulu knife charm with a single piercing through the top portion of the handle found in House 4 (Figure 7) and small lead balls found in House 1 suggest Labrador Inuit adopted this European material for similar deco-rative purposes.

Long deemed more valuable than iron or lead by many northeastern native groups, copper has served decora-tive and religious roles, as well as a form of currency. Copper Inuit of the central Arctic are known to collect copper from existing veins, yet no current archaeo-logical or ethnographic evidence exists indicating Labrador Inuit also mined copper (Wardle and Pollock 2007). Fur-ther, preliminary analysis of one copper fragment using a handheld x-ray fluores-cence (XRF) spectrometer found trace elements of lead, suggesting the material is an alloy and manufactured in Europe.

Copper was likely procured mainly for decorative purposes. One fragment cut into a geometric shape with small piercings on either end (Figure 8) was found in the House 1 midden and may have been a woman’s earring. It is similar to the earring seen in a 1769 painting by John Russell of Mikak, an

Figure 7. Lead ulu charm found in House 4. Figure 8. Copper pendant found in House 1.


316 • AREndT

influential Inuit woman and trader who aided the Moravians with the establish-ment of their missions (Figure 9) (Stopp 2009:49). Only nine copper fragments or 1 percent of both household assem-blages were found indicating that while Inuit did have access to the material it was on a limited basis.

Many of the metal objects and forms could have been acquired through trade with European fisherman, whalers and tradesmen. However, the presence of

metal does not verify that Inuit engaged in direct trade with Europeans, as it may have been collected from abandoned European sites. After a season of hunt-ing, fishing, whaling and trading along the Labrador coast, Europeans, primar-ily French and English, returned to their native country abandoning their temporary settlements. Inuit would encounter materials the European residents deemed trivial, such as extra nails or barrel hoops, or items simply

Figure 9. 1769 painting by John Russell of Mikak and her son (Stopp 2009:49). note that the upper portion of her earrings is similar to the artifact found in House 1. Reproduced with permission, 2013. © The Institute of Cultural and Social Anthropology, Georg-August university of Göttingen, Germany. Photo by Harry Haase.



thought lost. A better measure of trade potential would be identifying the items Europeans imported specifically to meet Inuit desires, such as beads, guns, tobacco pipes, and European ceramics. The amount of archaeological materials found in domestic spaces may indicate trade with Europeans or Inuit traders, while the volume could suggest the extent of engagement by individual households or settlements.

Initially given as gifts and trade items by European explorers, glass beads quickly became popular in Inuit culture and traded among groups. Their use by native groups may have been influ-enced by other social variables including status and preference in ornamentation (Bundy et al. 2003:31; Graeber 1996); however, few beads were recovered at Anniowaktook. Only four beads or 0.78 percent were found at House 1, which included a blue and white drawn bead and three red-on-clear beads, which are commonly found on eighteenth-century sites (Burgess and Sperling 2008). These beads tend to have long manufacturing spans that continued into the twentieth century and are not particularly diagnos-tic, yet they are commonly found in con-texts associated with European-native trading. This small sample of beads may reflect patterns regarding use and loss, preferences, bead availability, and ornamentation (Bundy et al. 2003:31). These beads were likely used for decora-tive purposes or as currency as this was common among other colonial sites in the Arctic and Alaska, yet remains only speculative in this context. nonetheless, the relatively low frequency indicates beads were carefully retained, perhaps due to their value.

European traders introduced the Inuit to a number of rare materials, per-haps the most prevalent being alcohol.

Trade lists and historic documents note that traders brought over alcohol in extremely large quantities. One method for identifying evidence for alcohol consumption would be the presence of glass bottles, specifically green wine-style bottles and pharmaceutical bottles. A bottle’s purpose can be inferred by its shape, color, and diagnostic features (Lindsey 2012). For instance, green bottles are often associated with alcohol, specifically liquor, beer, or wine; while clear, paneled bottles are considered medicinal bottles. Speculation regard-ing the exact use of the bottles can be problematic as bottles are often reused, yet historical trade lists and diaries show that southern European traders, excluding missionaries, freely traded alcohol with Inuit (Bassler 2006; Hiller 1971; Packard 1891). In northern Lab-rador, the Moravians forbade Inuit from consuming alcohol at the mission, and grew increasingly frustrated by Inuit who chose to travel south to visit the Europeans to buy alcohol. Missionaries felt that by going on these trips, Inuit “plunged themselves, not only into spiritual, but outward misery and ruin” (P. A. 1790:50). However, House 1 only included four bottle fragments or 0.78 percent of which only two were frag-ments from green wine bottle. Similarly, House 4 only had two bottle fragments making up only 1.1 percent of the assem-blage. The small samples can do little more than suggest that Anniowaktook Inuit had access to liquor, but it may not have been extensive.

Another form found at Anniowak-took commonly associated with trade is the tobacco pipe. Europeans traded tobacco and pipes since both were in high demand among Inuit. While native use of tobacco has often been associ-ated with religious or spiritual purposes,


318 • AREndT

particularly with western Inuit in Siberia and northern Alaska, Labrador Inuit did not appear to use tobacco for ritual purposes (Winter 2000:11). Instead, Inuit likely used tobacco frequently for medicinal purposes and its ability to deaden hunger. Tobacco was heavily sought after and traded by Inuit in the eighteenth

century and perhaps used

only for recreational purposes. However, the small sample of only three pipe frag-ments from both houses (0.4 percent) reiterates the limited availability and high curation value.

Tobacco pipes have also been used as a relative dating method since it was dis-covered that the bore diameter shrank over time (Binford 1962; Harrington 1951, 1954; Omwake 1956). The pipe bore diameters of the two stems found in House 1 were 5/64" and 6/64" which have a manufacturing date range of 1680–1750. The single pipe bore diam-eter found at the occupation level of House 4 was 4/64" has a manufacturing date range of 1750–1800 (Binford 1962; deetz 1996; McMillan 2010). However, recent research by Karen Smith, Fraser neiman and Jillian Galle (2008) deter-mined that bore diameter measure-ments can produce relatively accurate dates up until 1740, after which the correlation between bore diameter mea-surement and time flattens, becoming a less reliable measure of time. Further-more, a sample size of three pipe stems from Anniowaktook cannot allow for a statistically significant temporal range. Thus, the three pipe stems can do little more than provide possible terminus post quem (TPQ) dates of 1680 for House 1 and 1750 for House 4.

The final and perhaps most compel-ling item indicating contact and possible trade are European ceramics. While quantities were low, the ceramics found

in both houses were either from France or England. The prevalence of French and English ceramics was expected, given that these two countries main-tained the most continuous presence along the coast during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Fitzhugh and Olin 1993; Kaplan 1985; Kupp and Hart 1976; Pastore 1994; Pope 2004; Prowse 1895; Starkey and Haines 2001; Turgeon 1998). Most notable are stoneware and north devon coarseware from England, and normandy stoneware from France. Both ceramic types were manufactured from the seventeenth century into the eighteenth century (Blanchette 1981; Grant 1983).

The types of ceramic forms found show a clear consumption pattern by Inuit living at Anniowaktook. The assem-blage was dominated by hollow forms, which were used as cooking vessels for liquid or liquid based foods or the transportation of fresh water or snow. This pattern of hollow ceramic forms among Inuit houses follows consump-tion trends similar to those at other Labrador Inuit sites, with a preference for stewed and boiled foods and hot bev-erages. Archaeological evidence from nineteenth century Moravian-Inuit sites at nain and Hebron show hollow vessels dominated the ceramic assemblages, demonstrating that Inuit continued to consume traditional liquid-based foods (Arendt 2010; Cabak 1991; Cabak and Loring 2000; Loring and Arendt 2009).

European ceramics were also adopted by Inuit for other purposes. Eighteen fragments of a north devon coarseware pot were found in the post-abandonment midden associated with Anniowaktook House 4. The interior of the small vessel is heavily encrusted with burned blub-ber, and may have been used as a lamp. Alternatively, 54 hollow redware sherds



were found embedded in the Annio-waktook House 1 sleeping platform and may have been used for architectural purposes. Their location and the lack of any other use-wear (i.e., burned seal blubber or holes along the rim) suggest the vessel served an architectural role such as a roof post support.

The ceramic assemblage also serves as a relative dating tool when using the mean manufacturing dates to estimate the period of occupation. This method further narrows the broad eighteenth century date established by using glass beads and tobacco pipes. Best Linear unbiased Estimator Mean Ceramic dates (BLuE MCd) were calculated for each house and its associated midden. BLuE MCds are calculated using:

∑ ( )mi pi si1 2

6/where mi is the manufacturing mid-point of the i’ th type, pi is the relative frequency, and si is the manufactur-ing span of the ceramic type. unlike standard MCd, calculating BLuE MCd places less influence to ware types with long manufacturing spans and assumes type frequencies are Gaussian over time (Galle 2010; neiman and Smith 2005).

BLuE MCd were calculated with a 95% confidence interval by using the weighted average of the midpoints of the manufacturing dates based on documen-tary evidence (Table 1) (South 1977).

Confidence intervals were calculated to average the entire date range for each ceramic type for sherd in a single assem-blage, thus providing a range of possible occupation dates (Figure 10). House 1 (n = 66) has a BLuE MCd of 1779 ± 92. House 4 (n = 20) has a BLuE MCd of 1705 ± 35 and the post-abandonment midden (n = 20) is 1696 ± 35.

despite the attempt to capture a range of error, the small ceramic assemblages are problematic and can result in a lack of temporal precision. For instance, the BLuE MCds estimate that the House 4 midden has a slightly earlier date than the occupation level of House 4. Given that the midden was deposited after House 4 was abandoned, the earlier mean date for the House 4 midden probably reflects that Europe-ans were bringing older, out-of-fashion ceramic styles for trading. nevertheless, the confidence intervals suggest that the midden was deposited soon after House 4 was abandoned.

While the post-occupation midden shows that Anniowaktook had two separate occupations, a comparison of the BLuE MCds with the TPQ dates from the tobacco pipes (Table 2) places those occupations in the mid-eighteenth century. Inuit occupied Anniowaktook during the exact period when the coastal trade network was active, and before the arrival of the Moravians in Hopedale.

Table 1. Manufacturing date ranges of the ceramic ware types identified in the assemblages.

Ceramic Ware Type Date Range Mean Manufacturing Date

British Stoneware 1671–1800 1735.5

normandy Stoneware 1690–1790 1740

north devon Coarseware, Gravel Tempered 1600–1775 1687.5

Redware 1700–1900 1800

Rouen Plain Faience 1740–1790 1765


320 • AREndT

The architectural, faunal, botanical, and archaeological collection at Annio-waktook suggests that Inuit repeatedly occupied these houses during the summer or fall. Inuit living at Anniowak-took continued traditional hunting and domestic practices, while also accumulat-ing and manipulating European materi-als and artifacts. But the degree to which direct trade occurred is less clear. If Inuit were trading with Europeans or other Inuit, then it occurred only sporadi-cally. An assemblage that incorporates both traditional and foreign materials is common for this period; however, given the location near a prominent Inuit

trading site, the quantity and the types of materials may suggest alternative con-sumption practices by at least a few Inuit.

Other Eighteenth Century Inuit Settlements

The material culture described above must be understood in a context of an eighteenth century trade economy in northern Labrador where contact with Europeans was seasonal and relatively brief. Throughout the early historic period, European markets demanded north Atlantic products of fish, baleen, and oil. The Basque, dutch, French, English and Americans all sent boats to explore the Labrador coast in search of viable fishing and whaling areas as well as establish trade with Inuit, as Europeans also developed an increasing curiosity about the exotic cultures of the new World. By the end of the eighteenth cen-tury, the Strait of Belle Isle region, Ham-

Table 2. BLuE Mean Ceramic dates and TPQ dates for House 1 and House 4.

BLUE MCD TPQHouse 1 1779 ± 9 1680

House 4 1705 ± 35 1750

Figure 10. Best Linear unbiased Estimator Mean Ceramic dates for House 1, House 4, and its associated midden. The BLuE MCd was not calculated for House 1 midden due to its small sample size (n = 4).



ilton Inlet and Chateau Bay were dotted with French and English fishermen.

The development of trade along the Labrador coast is well documented both in historical and archaeological records (Auger 1989; Brice-Bennett 1981, 1990; Cadigan 2009; Cartwright 1792; Fitzhugh 1972, 1989, 2009; Gosling 1910; Haven n.d., 1773; Hawkes 1916; Hiller 2009; Jordan 1974, 1977; LaTrobe 1774; Loring and Arendt 2009; Packard 1891; Proulx 1993; Rankin 2011; Roll-mann 2011; Stopp 2008; Taylor 1969; The Moravians in Labrador 1835; Trudel 1978). The presence of European goods in eighteenth-century Inuit sites north of Hamilton Inlet, such as Anniowak-took, indicates European goods moved beyond European trading centers.

While evidence for the eighteenth century Inuit trade is noted in many documents from the European mer-chants and missionaries visiting or set-tling in Labrador (i.e., Cartwright 1792; P. A. 1790), the archaeological evidence that supports the presence of a formal trade network along the coast is a more limited. Excavations of Inuit sod houses in southern and northern Labrador have revealed deposits with significant quanti-ties of European materials.

Research in southern Labrador iden-tified a number of sites indicating con-tinued Inuit settlements over multiple centuries (Rankin et al. 2012; Brewster 2006, 2008). One of the most important of these sites that was occupied during the eighteenth century is Eskimo Island, situated in the southwest end of the nar-rows in Hamilton Inlet. Three clusters of large sod houses located within 170 m of one another exhibit multiple occupa-tions, each with a separate occupation period that spanned from the late six-teenth century to the early nineteenth century. The houses follow traditional

Inuit construction by having flat stone floors, long entrance tunnels, charred lamp stands, and raised sleeping plat-forms running along the back and side walls. designated as Eskimo Island 1, 2, and 3, the sites’ location in the narrows provided Inuit excellent opportunities to engage with European ships travel-ing down the Strait. As a result, the site has one of the largest and most diverse collection of European materials found at a Labrador Inuit site to date (Jordan 1978; Kaplan 1983), and the exact total number of artifacts is yet to be deter-mined. One sod house at Eskimo Island 1 which dates broadly to the eighteenth century included 8,968 glass beads, five clasp knives, a metal bowl, a padlock key, 40 eyeless fishhooks, 13 stoneware frag-ments, two sword pieces, an axe head, a ceramic ink container, and approxi-mately 600 nails and spikes alongside traditional artifacts such as wood bow fragments, harpoon shaft fragments, metal ulus, stitched leather hide, soap-stone vessel fragments and baleen strips (Jordan and Kaplan 1980:42). Similar levels of artifact densities seen at Eskimo Island 2 (see Jordan and Kaplan 1980) indicate that residents were heavily active in trade, accumulating an incred-ible variety of European goods. While a more specific site chronology is yet to be identified for any of the houses, the diversity seen at Eskimo Island falls in line with the prediction that those sites located closer to European trader settlements have more European mate-rials (Kaplan 1985). Thus, sites situated further north and away from European settlements should exhibit less diversity unless an active trade network is present.

Black Island and uivak Point near nain in northern Labrador serve as evidence for such a trade network. The Black Island site is an eighteenth cen-


322 • AREndT

tury Inuit sod house settlement located approximately 30 kilometers northeast of nain. The site is believed to have been occupied by Mikak, an influential Inuit woman who assisted the Moravians in securing a British land grant in 1769 and may have been an active Inuit trader (Fay 2011:34). Only one of the two semi-sub-terranean houses was solidly occupied during the mid-eighteenth century, yet it still exhibited many traditional archi-tectural features including a cold trap, a flat stone floor, and a raised sleeping platform made from packed sand and wood beams. Preliminary analysis found that the house had large quantities of European artifacts, including tobacco pipe fragments (n = 304) and glass beads (n = 192), while soapstone vessels were significantly underrepresented (Fay 2012:61). Although analysis is underway and total counts were not available, initial findings highlight the occupants’ ability to attain and consume a relatively large quantity of European goods.

Similarly, uivak Point is a nine sod house settlement repeatedly occupied from the seventeenth though the eighteenth century. German Moravian Church records suggest that the site was already occupied at the arrival of the missionaries in 1776, as the missionaries describe the area as one of the largest communities in the region with up to 125 residents (Taylor 1974; Woollett 2003:294, 296). Archaeological evidence suggests that the sod house settlement was occupied until 1807. It remained abandoned until the late nineteenth to early twentieth century when two small wooden houses were built near the shore (Woollett 2003:411). unlike Eskimo Island, uivak Point is located over 300 km north of Hamilton Inlet. Inuit living here probably did not come into regular contact with European traders

who did not travel north for fear of being iced in during the winter. Instead, access to goods was the result of making the long journey south or trading with other Inuit traders. despite its more northerly location, four of the nine houses exhibit a considerable amount of European artifacts, including one house assem-blage composed of 10 percent glass beads (n = 276), 20.1 percent ceramic vessel fragments (n = 577), 4.1 percent tobacco pipe fragments (n = 113), and 0.3 percent metal buttons (n = 9) (Wool-lett 2003:647–658). This assemblage also included 15 percent iron items (n = 406) such as nails, strap, and barrel iron that may have been sourced as materials for other tools. The variety of material types and forms indicates Inuit living at both Black Island and uivak Point were not restricted by their more northerly occu-pation but rather privileged to similar levels of access perhaps due to an active trade network.

The evidence for trade in southern and northern Labrador sites is clear. However, less is known about the role central Labrador sites played in the trade network. In addition to the Annio-waktook excavations, research at a sod house settlement called Adlavik located 24 kilometers south of the Moravian mission site of Makkovik in Long Tickle hoped to expand this understanding (Arendt 2011:258). Tucked into the well-protected Adlavik harbour, the site consists of four earthen-walled semi-sub-terranean sod houses. The site exhibits similar architectural and archaeological features as those identified at other Inuit sod house settlements including flat stone floors, interior meat caches, sleep-ing platforms, lamp stands, and multiple hearths. Adlavik also had multiple and separate occupations as evidenced by a post-occupation shell midden found



above the occupation level of one house. Missing portions of the sod walls from two houses also point to evidence of mul-tiple occupations, as the walls from two houses may have been used to construct the two other houses (Stephen Loring, personal communication 2010).

Similar to Anniowaktook, the Adlavik assemblages included European trade goods but at a lower proportion than the assemblages from sites further north and south. The presence of at least a few European trade items suggests Adlavik Inuit were not isolated from the trade network, such as 50 beads (4 percent), 17 wine or pharmaceutical glass bottle fragments (1.3 percent) and 45 ceramic fragments (3.5 percent) from all four houses. Clearly, Inuit living at Adlavik were not consuming European items to the same degree as Inuit living at uivak and Eskimo Island; however, they were consuming considerably more metal. Over 70 percent (n = 905) of the assem-blage was comprised of metal items such as iron scrap and nails (Arendt 2011:281, 292). The higher amount of metal sug-gest Inuit were incorporating more manufacturing material for the construc-tion of tools. Further, the higher density of non-manipulated nails at Adlavik (n = 681) may be the result of Inuit sal-vaging boxes and barrels for the wood. The difference seen in this assemblage may indicate Inuit were incorporating different modes of accumulation that include trading as well as scavenging items from abandoned sites (Arendt 2011:352–357). Inuit living at Adlavik appear to be more interested in manu-facturing materials rather than trade items, suggestive of household choices not to engage in an active trade network.

The patterns of other mid to late eighteenth century Inuit sites described above reveal that Anniowaktook differs

from what would be expected of Inuit who are actively trading with European or Inuit traders. Given Anniowaktook’s central location in Labrador and the missionaries’ description of the region’s affluence, Anniowaktook house deposits were expected to exhibit a vast array of European trade materials. neverthe-less, consumption patterns identified at Anniowatook is more similar to choices made by Inuit living at Adlavik than any other site described above. The patterns suggest that there may be alternative models regarding Inuit access and consumption of European goods along the Labrador coast during the mid to late eighteenth century. This difference may be tied to household choices where consuming manufacturing material used for the production of tools was more valued than accumulating exotic Euro-pean items. The collection of more data can only clarify whether a formal trad-ing system among Inuit existed along the entire coast (Kaplan 1985) or that individual households had their own set of rules regarding collecting European materials.

Conclusion The Annniowaktook site represents an important element in this region’s archaeological history, as it was part of one of the earliest reconnaissance in the Hopedale area. Only recently have researchers returned to the area to col-lect more data. The aforementioned research at Anniowaktook adds to the work done by Kaplan (1983, 1985) and Bird (1945) but only provides a limited data set. The area can still benefit from additional surveys and subsequent analysis.

This review of the excavations from 2007 through 2009 shows that Anniowak-took shares many architectural features


324 • AREndT

similar to other prehistoric and historic Inuit sites, yet exhibits different con-sumption patterns to those seen at con-temporary Inuit sod house settlements. The artifact assemblages include an array of expected materials, such as tra-ditional hunting and domestic artifacts alongside European trade items. How-ever, the amount and types of materials amassed reveal some unique differences in the consumption and discard habits of Anniowaktook Inuit residents, particu-larly, the increased presence of manipu-lated and non-manipulated iron. Inuit choices to consume and discard more iron may point to household decisions to collect material that served a functional role (i.e., tools) rather than a decorative or symbolic purpose. This distinction is important in order to understand how the trade network functioned along the coast and whether these patterns are more widespread at central Labrador sites. Further research is required to identify if this was a function of the trade network or evidence for an alternative Inuit consumption model.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Stephen Loring, Christopher Wolff, Gary Coupland, and three anonymous review-ers for their comments and edits to earlier drafts of this article. Their input significantly improved the organization and content. I would like to thank Cynthia Zutter for providing the archaeobotanical analysis of Anniowaktook houses and James Woollett, Céline dupont-Hébert, Félix Gagné, and Lindsay Swinarton for conducting the faunal analysis used above, and Christine Zunz who provided the French translation for the abstract. Special thanks must go to the nunatsiavut Government and Jamie Brake, the Provincial Archaeology Office, and the people of Hopedale, Labrador for support-ing my research over the years.

Note1. Strap metal was differentiated from

sheet metal. Strap metal had to be rec-tangular and have at least one finished edge. Sheet metal was flat metal but did not necessarily have a particular shape or any finished edges.

2. A BLuE MCd was not calculated for the House 1 midden because it only had four ceramic sherds, which will not allow for reliable estimates.

References CitedArendt, Beatrix

2010 Caribou to Cod: Moravian Mis-sionary Influence on Inuit Subsis-tence Strategies. Historical Archaeology 44(3):81–101.

2011 Gods, Goods and Big Game: The Archaeology of Labrador Inuit Choices in an Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Mission Context. Ph.d. dissertation, department of Anthropology, univer-sity of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Auger, Reginald1989 Labrador Inuit and Europeans in the Strait of Belle Isle: From the Written Sources to the Archaeo-logical Evidence. unpublished Ph.d. dissertation, university of Calgary, Calgary.

Barkham, Selma1980 notes of Straits of Belle Isle. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4(1–2):51–58.

Bassler, Gerhard P.2006 Vikings to U-boats: The German Experience in Newfoundland and Labra-dor. McGill- Queen’s university Press, Montreal and Kingston.

Binford, Lewis1962 A new Method of Calculating dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Frag-ments. Southeastern Archaeological Con-ference Newsletter 9(1):19–21.



Bird, Junius1945 Archaeology of the Hopedale Area, Labrador. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of natural His-tory. American Museum of natural History, new York.

Blanchette, Jean François1981 The Role of Artifacts in the Study of Foodways in New France, 1720-1760. History and Archaeology 52. Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Boles, Bruce, G. J. Chaput, and F. Phillips

1980 Offshore Labrador Biological Stud-ies, 1979: Seals. A Study and Review of the Distribution of Pinnipeds in Labrador. Report by Atlantic Biological Services, St. John’s, newfoundland for Total Eastcan Explorations, Calgary.

Brewster, natalie2006 The Inuit in Southern Labrador: The View from Snack Cove. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology no. 15. Copetown Press, St. John’s.

2008 The Inuit View in Southern Labrador: A View from Snack Cove. North Atlantic Archaeology 1:25–42.

Brice-Bennett, Carol1981 Two Opinions: Inuit and Mora-vian Missionaries in Labrador 1804-1860. unpublished Master’s thesis, Memorial university of newfound-land, St. John’s.

1990 Missionaries as Traders: Mora-vians and Labrador Inuit, 1771–1860. In Merchant Credit and Labour Strategies in Historical Perspective, edited by Rose-mary Ommer, pp. 223–246. Acadiensis Press, Fredericton, new Brunswick

Bundy, Barbara E., Allen P. McCartney, and douglas W. Veltre

2003 Glass Trade Beads from Reese Bay, unalaska Island: Spatial and

Temporal Patterns. Arctic Anthropology 40(1):29–47.

Burgess, Laurie, and Christopher Sperling

2008 Glass Beads from Gloucester Point. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology 2008 Con-ference on Historical and underwa-ter Archaeology, Albuquerque, new Mexico.

Cabak, Melanie1991 Inuit Women as Catalysts of Change: An Archaeological Study of 19th Century Northern Labrador. Master’s thesis, department of Anthropology, university of South Carolina.

Cabak, Melanie, and Stephen Loring2000 “A Set of Very Fair Cups and Saucers”: Stamped Ceramics as an Example of Inuit Incorporation. Inter-national Journal of Historical Archaeology 4(1):1–34.

Cadigan, Sean T.2009 Newfoundland and Labrador: A History. university of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Cartwright, George1792 A Journal of Transactions and Events, During a Residence of Nearly Sixteen Years on the Coast of Labrador: Containing Many Interesting Particulars, Both of the Country and Its Inhabitants, Not Hitherto Known. Allin and Ridge, newark.

dawson, Peter C.2001 Interpreting Variability in Thule Inuit Architecture: A Case Study from the Canadian High Arctic. American Antiquity 66(3):453–470.

deetz, James1996 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Books, new York.


326 • AREndT

Fay, Amelia2011 Excavations on Black Island, Labrador. Provincial Archaeology Office 2010 Archaeology Review 9:34–36.

2012 2011 Black Island (HeCi-15) Excavation. Provincial Archaeology Office 2011 Archaeology Review 10:60–62.

Fitzhugh, William W.1972 Environmental Archeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador. Smithsonian Contribution to Anthropology, 16. Smithsonian Institu-tion, Washington, d.C.

1981 Smithsonian Archaeological Surveys Central and northern Lab-rador, 1980. In Archaeology in New-foundland and Labrador: 1980, edited by Jane S. Thomson, pp. 26–47. new-foundland Museum, Historic Resourc-es division, Government of new-foundland and Labrador, St. John’s.

1989 Hamilton Inlet and Cartwright Reconniassance. In Archaeology in New-foundland and Labrador 1986: Annual Report #7, edited by J. Callum Thom-son and Jane S. Thomson, pp. 164-181. Historic Resources division, newfoundland Museum. department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, St. John’s.

1994 Staffe Island I and the northern Labrador dorset-Thule Succession. In Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr, Mercury Series no. 149, Archaeological Survey of Canada, edited by david A. Morri-son and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 239–268. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.

2009 Exploring Cultural Boundaries: The Less “Invisible” Inuit of Southern Labrador and Quebec. In On the Track of the Thule Culture From Bering Strait to East Greenland, edited by Bjarne

Grønnow, pp. 129–148. The Green-land Research Centre at the national Museum of denmark, Copenhagen.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Jacqueline Olin (editors)

1993 Archaeology of the Frobisher Voyages. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, d.C.

Friesen, T. Max, and Charles Arnold2008 The Timing of the Thule Migra-tion: new dates from the Western Canadian Arctic. American Antiquity 73(3):491–538.

Galle, Jillian E.2010 Costly Signaling and Gendered Social Strategies among Slaves in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake: An Archaeological Perspective. American Antiquity 75(1):19–43.

Gosling, William G.1910 Labrador: Its Discovery, Exploration and Development. Alston Rivers, Ltd, London.

Graeber, david1996 Beads and Money: notes toward a Theory of Wealth and Power. Ameri-can Ethnologist 23(1):4–24.

Grant, Allison1983 North Devon Pottery: The Sev-enteenth Century. The university of Exeter, Exeter, England.

Harrington, J. C.1951 Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 5(4):2–8.

1954 dating Stem Fragments of Sev-enteenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 9(1):10–14.

Haven, Jensn.d. Memoir of the Life of Br. Jens Haven, the First Missionary of the Brethren’s



Church to the Esquimaux, on the Coast of Labrador. Periodical Accounts, II. London.

1773 Extract of the Voyage of the Sloop George from Nain to Reconnoitre the Northern Parts of Labrador in the Months of August and September, 1773. Copy of manuscript on file at the Centre for newfoundland Studies, Memo-rial university of newfoundland, St. John’s.

Hawkes, Earnest William1916 The Labrador Eskimo. Anthropo-logical Series, 14. Johnson Reprint Corporation, new York.

Hiller, James K.1971 The Moravians in Labra-dor, 1771–1805. The Polar Record 15(99):839–854.

2009 Eighteenth-Century Labrador: The European Perspective. In Moravi-an Beginnings in Labrador: Papers from a Symposium Held in Makkovik and Hoped-ale, newfoundland and Labrador Studies, Occasional Publication, 2, edited by Hans Rollmann, pp. 37–52. Memorial university, St. John’s.

Jordan, Richard1974 Preliminary Report on Archaeo-logical Investigations of the Labrador Eskimo in Hamilton Inlet in 1973. Man in the Northeast 8(1):77–89.

1977 Inuit Occupation of the Central Labrador Coast Since 1600 Ad. In Our Footsteps Are Everywhere: Inuit Land Use and Occupancy in Labrador, edited by Carol Brice-Bennett, pp. 43–48. Labrador Inuit Association, nain.

1978 Archaeological Investigations of the Hamilton Inlet Labrador Eskimo: Social and Economic Responses to European Contact. Arctic Anthropology 15(2):175–185.

Jordan, Richard, and Susan Kaplan1980 An Archaeological View of the Inuit/European Contact Period in Central Labrador. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4(1–2):35–45.

Kaplan, Susan1983 Economic and Social Change in Labrador neo-Eskimo Culture. unpublished Ph.d. dissertation, department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania.

1985 European Goods and Socio-Economic Change in Early Labrador Inuit Society. In Cultures in Contact: The Impact of European Contacts on Native American Culture Institutions A.D. 1000-1800, edited by William W. Fitzhugh, pp. 45–69. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, d.C.

Kaplan, Susan, and James Woollett2000 Challenges and Choices: Explor-ing the Interplay of Climate, History and Culture on Canada’s Labrador Coast. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 32(3):351–359.

Kennedy, John 2009 Two Worlds of Eighteenth-Century Labrador Inuit. In Moravian Beginnings in Labrador: Papers from a Symposium held in Makkovik and Hoped-ale, newfoundland and Labrador Studies, Occasional Publication 2, edited by Hans Rollmann, pp. 23–36. Memorial university, St. John’s.

Kupp, Jan, and Simon Hart1976 The dutch in the Strait of davis and Labrador during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Man in the Northeast Spring(11):3–20.

LaTrobe, Benjamin1774 A Brief Account of the Mission Established Among the Esquimaux Indi-ans, on the Coast of Labrador by the


328 • AREndT

Church of the Brethren. The Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, London.

Lindsey, Bill2012 Bottle Typing (Typology) and diagnostic Shapes. Electronic docu-ment, http://www.sha.org/bottle/typ-ing.htm, accessed June 21, 2012.

Loring, Stephen, and Beatrix Arendt2009 “… they Gave Hebron, the City of Refuge …” (Joshua 21:13): An Archaeological Reconnaissance at Hebron, Labrador. Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume (1):33–56.

Loring, Stephen, and Leah Rosenmeier 2005 Anguti’s Amulet/Angutiup Ânguanga. Eastern Woodland Publish-ing, Millbrook First nation, Truro, nova Scotia.

Maxwell, Moreau1985 Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

McCullough, Karen1989 The Ruin Islanders. Mercury Series, 141. Canadian Museum of Civi-lization, Hull, Quebec.

McGhee, Robert2007 Last Imaginary Place: A Human History of the Arctic World. university of Chicago Press, Chicago.

McMillan, Lauren2010 Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It: An Evaluation of Tobacco Pipe Stem dating Methods. unpub-lished Master’s thesis, department of Anthropology, Eastern Carolina uni-versity.

Morrison, david1981 A Preliminary Statement on neo-Eskimo Occupations in West-ern Coronation Gulf, n.W.T. Arctic 34(3):261–269.

neiman, Fraser, and Karen Smith2005 How Can Bayesian Smoothing and Correspondence Analysis Help decipher the Occupational Histories of Late-Eighteenth Century Slave Quarters at Monticello? Poster pre-sented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, utah.

Omwake, H. Geiger1956 date-Bore diameter Correlation in English White Kaolin Pipe Stems. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 2(1):3–5.

P. A.1790 Periodical Accounts Relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren Established Among the Heathen. J. Marshall, London.

Packard, Alpheus Spring1891 The Labrador Coast: A Journal of Two Summer Cruises to That Region. n.d.C. Hodges, new York.

Park, Robert W.1997 Thule Winter Site demography in the High Arctic. American Antiquity 62(2):273–284.

Pastore, Ralph1994 The Sixteenth Century: Aborigi-nal Peoples and European Contact. In The Atlantic Region to Confederation: A History, edited by Philip A. Buckner and John G. Reid, pp. 22–39. univer-sity of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Pope, Peter2004 Fish into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation in the Seventeenth Century. The university of north Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Proulx, Jean-Pierre1993 Basque Whaling in Labrador in the Sixteenth Century. national Historic Sites, Parks Service, Ottawa.



Prowse, daniel Woodley1895 A History of Newfoundland from the English, Colonial, and Foreign Records. Macmillan & Co, London.

Ramsden, Peter, and Lisa Rankin2010 Thule Radiocarbon Chronology and Its Implications for Early Inuit-European Interaction in Labrador. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-ing of the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology, St. John’s, newfound-land.

2013 The Thule Radiocarbon Chro-nology and Its Implication for Early Inuit-European Interaction in Lab-rador. In In Exploring Atlantic Transi-tions: Archaeologies of Permanence and Transience in New Found Lands, Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology Mono-graph, 7, edited by Peter Pope and Shannon Lewis-Simpson. Boydell and Brewster, Woodbridge, Suffulk.

Rankin, Lisa2011 A People for All Seasons: Expression of Inuit Identity over the Past 500 Years in Southern Labrador. In Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspec-tives on Social Identity, Proceedings of the 42nd (2010) Annual Chacmool Archaeology Conference, edited by Lindsay Amundsen-Pichering, nicole Engel, and Sean Pickering, pp. 332–340. Chacmool Archaeological Asso-ciation, university of Calgary, Calgary.

Rankin, Lisa, Matthew Beaudoin, and natalie Brewster

2012 Southern Exposure: The Inuit of Sandwich Bay, Labrador. In Settlement, Subsistence and Change among the Labrador Inuit, edited by david C. natcher, Lawrence Felt, and Andrea H. Procter, pp. 61–84. uni-versity of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Richling, Barnett1993 Labrador’s “Communal House Phase” Reconsidered. Arctic Anthropol-ogy 30(1):67–78.

Rollmann, Hans2011 “So Fond of the Pleasure to Shoot”: The Sale of Firearms to Inuit on Labrador’s north Coast in the Late Eighteenth Century. Newfound-land and Labrador Studies 26(1):5–24.

Sabo, George, and John Jacobs1980 Aspects of Thule Culture Adap-tations in Southern Baffin Island. Arc-tic 33(3):487–504.

Schledermann, Peter1971 The Thule Tradition in Northern Labrador. Master’s thesis, department of Anthropology, Memorial university of newfoundland, St. John’s.

1976 Thule Culture Communal Hous-es in Labrador. Arctic 29(1):27–37.

Smith, Karen, Fraser neiman, and Jillian Galle

2008 Building a Continuous Chronol-ogy for Studying Early-modern Atlan-tic Slavery. Poster presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

South, Stanley A.1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, new York.

Starkey, david, and Michael Haines2001 The newfoundland Fisheries, c. 1500–1900: A British Perspective. In The Exploited Seas: New Directions for Marine Environmental History, Research in Maritime History 21, edited by Poul Holm, Tim Smith, and david Starkey, pp. 1–11. Census of Marine Life/International Maritime Economic His-tory Association, St. John’s.

Stopp, Marianne P.2008 The New Labrador Papers of Cap-


330 • AREndT

tain George Cartwright. McGill-Queen’s university, Montreal.

2009 Eighteenth Century Labrador Inuit in England. Arctic 62(1):45–64.

Taylor, J. Garth1969 William Turner’s Journeys to the Caribou Country with the Lab-rador Eskimos in 1780. Ethnohistory 16(2):141–164.

1974 Labrador Eskimo Settlements of the Early Contact Period. Ethnology, 9. national Museum of Man, national Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

The Moravians in Labrador1835 The Moravians in Labrador. Wil-liam Oliphant and Son, Edinburgh.

Trudel, Francois1978 The Inuit of Southern Labrador and the development of French Sed-entary Fisheries (1700-1760). In Cana-dian Ethnology Society, Papers from the Fourth Annual Congress 1977, Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service, Paper no. 40, edited by Richard Pres-ton, pp. 99–121. national Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Turgeon, Laurier1998 French Fishers, Fur Traders, and Amerindians during the Six-teenth Century: History and Archae-ology. The William and Mary Quarterly 55(4):585–610.

Turner, Lucien2001 Ethnology of the Ungava District, Hudson Bay Territory. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, d.C.

Wardle, R. J., and J. Pollock2007 Mineral Commodities of Newfound-land and Labrador: Copper. Geological Survey Mineral Commodities Series, 3. Geological Survey of newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s, newfound-land.

Whitridge, Peter2008 Reimagining the Iglu: Moder-nity and the Challenge of the Eigh-teenth Century Labrador Inuit Winter House. Archaeologies 4(2):288–309.

Whitridge, Peter, and James Woollett2008 Summary of 2007 Fieldwork at Iglosiatik and Komaktorvik Fiord. Pro-vincial Archaeology Office 2008 Archaeol-ogy Review 6:60–61.

Winter, Joseph C.2000 Tobacco Use by Native North Ameri-cans: Sacred Smoke and Silent Killer. uni-versity of Oklahoma Press, norman

Woollett, James1999 Living in the narrows: Labrador Inuit Subsistence in Hamilton Inlet. World Archaeology 3(1):370–387.

2003 An Historical Ecology of Labrador Inuit Culture Change. Ph.d. disserta-tion, department of Anthropology, City university of new York, new York.

2007 Labrador Inuit Subsistence in the Context of Environmental Change: An Initial Landscape History Perspective. American Anthropologist 109(1):69–84.

2010 Oakes Bay 1: A Preliminary Reconstruction of a Labrador Inuit Seal Hunting Economy in the Con-text of Climate Change. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2):245–259.

Zutter, Cynthia2008 Archaeobotanical Contributions to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Inuit Economy. Paper pre-sented at the 73th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

Manuscript received March 20, 2013; Final revisions September 27, 2013.

Return to Hopedale: Excavations at Anniowaktook Island, Hopedale, Labrador

Documents

Transcript of Return to Hopedale: Excavations at Anniowaktook Island, Hopedale, Labrador