• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • DON II
    October 07, 2012 - 13:07

    I trust that The Telegram will permit me to respond to comments from John: What John derisively calls "rambling" is simply cogent explanation which is required to dispel the myths, unfounded local folklore, misinterpretation and suppression of historical documents which has been employed for decades by the Government of Newfoundland to promote Cupids alternatively as the site of the Sea Forest Plantation, the oldest English colony or settlement in Canada, the location of Cupers Cove and the site of the Cupers Cove Plantation and also the site of the Cupids Cove Plantation. It is important to note that none of these claims regarding Cupids has ever been proved or independently authenticated and are NOT historically correct or supported by the proper interpretation of well documented historical fact!. My opinions are founded on well documented historical facts and not on myths, local folklore or political expedience. It appears that some of the pertinent documentation that I have obtained and researched had been undiscovered, suppressed or otherwise not made available in complete form for public scrutiny. It appears that suppression or misinterpretation of historical fact assisted in promoting the erroneous assumption and unauthenticated claim that Cupids is the site of Cupers Cove. When it comes to authenticating claims of historical significance it is necessary that ALL available documentation be published in complete form and that salient and pertinent facts not be edited, implied or withheld. In his comments John stated that: " I know of 4 Salmon Coves on the Avalon Peninsula." While other places named Salmon Cove have or do exist on the Avalon Peninsula, that is of no consequence to the issue, I am only concerned with the location of the Salmon Cove in Conception Bay that John Guy wrote about in his letter dated October 6, 1610. In that letter John Guy clearly stated that Cupers Cove was a branch of Salmon Cove. That letter, when read in its entirety, provides pertinent information which can be utilized in finding the authentic location of Cupers Cove. I am not concerned with other places named Salmon Cove that were located outside of Conception Bay or which came into existence in the late 1700's, 1800's or 1900's as these places would have no bearing on the location of the Salmon Cove in Conception Bay that John Guy wrote about in 1610! All of t he maps I refer to show only 2 places called Salmon Cove in Conception Bay in the 1600's and 1700's. None of the maps show a place called Salmon Cove located near Cupids in the 1600's or 1700's! If there had been a Salmon Cove located near Cupids Cove in the 1600's and 1700's it would have appeared on these maps but it does not. The maps from the 1600's and 1700's show a Salmon Cove located near Carbonear where it still is located today and another Salmon Cove located near where the town of Avondale is located today. Anyone familiar with the facts regarding where John Guy landed in 1610 would know that the Salmon Cove situated near Carbonear was not the Salmon Cove which John Guy wrote about in his letter of October 6, 1610. The maps of the 1600's and 1700's do NOT show a place named Salmon Cove located near Cupids because it was NOT there! The Plantation Book of Conception Bay shows that there was no habitation of any place called Salmon Cove near Cupids in the 1600's. The historical maps, letters, Royal Charter of the Colony of Avalon and the Plantation Book of Conception Bay confirm that there was no place named Salmon Cove located near Cupids in the 1600's. Accordingly, it is NOT possible that John Guy was writing about the about the Salmon Cove near Cupids when wrote that Cupers Cove was a branch of Salmon Cove. The maps, documents, letters, Plantation Book and Royal Charter of the Colony of Avalon clearly show that John Guy did NOT make landfall at Cupids in 1610! The location of the Salmon Cove that John Guy wrote about on October 6, 1610 is THE land mark which shows the way to finding the real Cupers Cove! The Salmon Cove that John Guy wrote about in1610 was situated near where Avondale is located today. Knowledge of that fact makes it possible to find the authentic location of Cupers Cove! What is so difficult to understand about that? The maps of the Avalon Peninsula from the 1600's and 1700's and The Royal Charter of the Colony of Avalon from 1623 confirm that there was a Salmon Cove located near where Avondale is now. The statement of Edward Wynne in his letter of 1622 regarding "our Northern Plantation" must be a reference to the Cupers Cove Plantation which the maps and documents show was located inside the borders of the Colony of Avalon. The Royal Charter of the Colony of Avalon clearly shows that the borders of the Colony of Avalon were bounded on the West by the lands of the Sea Forest Plantation which were situated at the Salmon Cove near where Avondale is located today. It appears that Bill Gilbert, the Chief Archaeologist in Cupids, has confirmed that his research shows that the Sea Forest Plantation was not located in Cupids. The historical documents clearly show that the lands of the Sea Forest Plantation were NOT located in Cupids. Accordingly, the Sea Forest Plantation lands must have been situated near the Salmon Cove that John Guy wrote about in 1610 which is clearly near where the town of Avondale is located today! Promoters of Cupids history refer to the Mason map as proof that Cupids is Cupers Cove. However, D.W Prowse, in his 1895 book, completely discredited the Mason map as follows: "A close examination of this map shows that it was not constructed by Mason, all its features being traceable in much older maps.. " It appears that the so called Mason map was drawn by other persons who clearly had no direct knowledge of where Cupers Cove was located or how the name was properly spelled. It is clear that both Cupers Cove and Cupids Cove existed in 1610 at separate locations. The unfounded belief that Cupids is Cupers Cove was created by the so called Mason map misspelling of the name of "Cupids Cove" as "Cuperts Cove" and was exacerbated when numerous other maps of Conception Bay which showed the location of the Salmon Cove that John Guy wrote about in 1610 were ignored. It is improbable that John Mason, as the Governor of 'Cupers Cove," was responsible for the erroneous spelling of the name of Cupers Cove and shows that Mason did not personally draw the so called Mason map. All of the other documents, letters by John Guy, Henry Crout and Edward Wynne, numerous maps of the Avalon Peninsula from the 1600's and 1700's and the Royal Charter of the Colony of Avalon from 1623 clearly show that Salmon Cove existed near Cupers Cove in 1610 and was situated somewhere between Avondale and Holyrood! Despite sustained lobbying efforts and unprecedented promotion of the Town of Cupids as an historic place, the fact remains that the Government of Newfoundland chose not to designate Cupids as the authentic site of the Cupers Cove Plantation and chose not to designate the Town of Cupids as the authentic site of Cupers Cove. Inexplicably and for unexplained reasons, the Government of Newfoundland expropriated land in Cupids, provided funding and designated a Provincial Historic Site to the Cupids Cove Plantation, a place which is NEVER mentioned in the historic record of Newfoundland! It appears that the Government of Newfoundland decided that it was convenient and expedient to ignore historical documents, accept supposition and conjecture as fact, believe myths, local folklore and misinterpretation of historical documents regarding the purported history of Cupids that have been promoted as historical fact for over a hundred years. However, the well documented content of numerous historic maps of the Avalon Peninsula, letters from people like John Guy, Henry Crout and Edward Wynne and the description of boundaries outlined in the Royal Charter of the Colony of Avalon clearly show that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove and therefore cannot be the site of the Cupers Cove Plantation!

  • John
    October 06, 2012 - 12:06

    Having read the article and comments, I must say Bill Gilbert has the facts correct based on his support of his statements. Don II you did not address any of the facts Bill Gilbert gave in his response. If I wereas adjudicating a debate on this article, Bill Gilbert has won without a doubt. Don II ..rambling on with no accurate support will not convince anyone. I know of 4 Salmon Coves on the Avalon Peninsula. A very common name in early 17th and 18th century. Don II bring forth your proof and support your statements. Winston, A lot of beothuck Indians died of white man disease, not the slaughtering as we were taught in early grades. I love a good debate! Keep it coming. Good article Lillian Simmons as usual

  • DON II
    October 03, 2012 - 14:23

    I trust that The Telegram will allow me to respond to the comments of Bill Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert's comments are not convincing and simply reiterate misinterpretations of historical documents. Inexplicably, other than repeating these misinterpretations, Mr. Gilbert offers NO conclusive proof that Cupids is Cupers Cove. I must respectfully refute Mr. Gilbert's comments as follows: 1. Henry Crout did NOT mention a "Salt Water Pond". In his journal on March 13, 1613 Crout stated: "This morning the LITTLE POND between the house and Brue house..." Henry Crout makes no mention of a Salt Water Pond. 2. John Guy and Henry Crout in their letters and journals NEVER mentioned Cupids. 3. As for Crout and Willoughby walking to Brigus it would be possible to walk to Brigus and back to Cupers Cove (Avondale) in one day. 4. Henry Crout referred from his vantage point in Conception Bay to "the spectacles" in plural and not in singular form which means the land marks which he viewed on his way to Cupers Cove contained two headlands and not one as Mr. Gilbert contends. 5. Some maps drawn in the 1600's placed the North where South is located and East where West is located. Accordingly, John Guy's reference to the location of Cupers Cove as written from his Cupers Cove vantage point in Cupers Cove as being located 3 leagues (9miles) from Colliers Bay to the Northeastward could also be interpreted to mean that Cuper's Cove is located 9 miles from Colliers Bay in the direction of Avondale. 6. As for the references to a little pond and a lake 2 miles in length and a sixth of a mile wide being located at Cupers Cove, the virtually identical geographic configurations containing a small pond and a large lake as found at Cupids can also be found at Avondale near the beach and at Lee's Pond and also at Chapel's Cove near the beach and First Pond. These locations are situated close to the Salmon Cove that John Guy described near Avondale in 1610. 7. Mr. Gilbert's reference to Salmon Cove as being just over the hill North of Cupids fails to recognize that historical maps and documents such as the Plantation Book show that there is no record of a place called Salmon Cove being situated near Cupids and that there was no habitation of a place called Salmon Cove near Cupids in the 1600's. The Salmon Cove that exists today near Cupids was occupied and named many decades AFTER John Guy wrote that Cupers Cove was a branch of Salmon Cove. It is clear that John Guy could not have been writing about the Salmon Cove near Cupids because it was not in existence in 1610! 8. the Mason map has been discredited by D.W. Prowse in his book "A History of Newfoundland" in which Prowse stated: " A close examination of this map shows that it was not constructed by Mason.." The name of Cupers Cove is spelled incorrectly and the placement of Cupers Cove on the map is incorrect which is indicative that Mason, who was the Governor of Cupers Cove and should have known how to spell the name correctly, did not create the purported Mason map. It appears that the Robinson map was influenced by the content of the erroneous Mason map and both maps should be discounted as being inaccurate. 9. A map drawn by John Senex in 1719 shows "Coopers Cove" located close to Avondale. 10. The comments of Sir William Alexander in 1624 simply confirms the existence of Cupids Cove as does the maps of Conception Bay in the 1600's. I do not dispute that both Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove existed in the early 1600's. However, the content of historic documents, maps and the boundary of the Colony of Avalon does clearly show that Cupers Cove and Cupids were separate and distinct places located miles apart and were not one and the same place. It appears that the discontinuation of the name Cupers Cove allowed for the erroneous conclusion to arise that Cupids is Cupers Cove. The fact that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove is confirmed by John Guy who described where Cupers Cove was actually located in 1610 and by Edward Wynne who described the existence of "our Northern Plantation" within the boundary of the Colony of Avalon in 1622 which could only have been the Cupers Cove Plantation. The documents, maps and letters clearly show that the boundary of the Colony of Avalon did not extend to the West beyond where Avondale is located now. This documentation confirms that Cupers Cove which was a branch of Salmon Cove in 1610 was located somewhere between Avondale and Holyrood and NOT at Cupids! Local myth, misinterpretation or suppression of historical fact has been a major factor in the erroneous conclusion that Cupids is Cupers Cove. A correct reading and understanding of the historical documents, letters and maps clearly show that Cupids is NOT the site of the oldest English settlement in Canada and is NOT the authentic location of Cupers Cove! Despite Mr. Gilbert's unpersuasive attempt to show that Cupids and Cupers Cove are one and the same place, the fact remains that the Government of Newfoundland chose NOT to designate Cupids as being the authentic site of the Cupers Cove Plantation but chose instead to commemorate the Cupids Cove Plantation, a place that NEVER existed in Newfoundland history! It is apparent that the Government of Newfoundland does not believe that Cupids and Cupers Cove are one and the same place. I will be pleased to provide the Government of Newfoundland with many other documented examples of why Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove!

  • Bill Gilbert, BTHC
    October 03, 2012 - 11:16

    Here are some of the facts that prove that Cupids and Cupers Cove are one and the same place First: John Guy’s first letter from Newfoundland (or at least the earliest one to survive) was written on October 6, 1610. In it Guy states that Cupers Cove was located “three Leagues”, or roughly nine miles, northeast of Colliers Second: Guy’s second letter from Newfoundland was written on May 16, 1611. In it he states that there was a lake located a short distance from the bottom of the harbour at Cupers Cove and that it was “two miles in length and the sixt part of a mile broad”. Cupids Pond located a short distance from the bottom of Cupids Harbour is, on average, 1/6 of a mile wide. Today Cupids Pond is about 1.6 miles in length but railway construction in the late 19th century and in-filling since then has reduced its length considerable. Third: In the same letter Guy states that a brook ran through Cupers Cove. In his Journal Henry Crout also mentions the brook and states that on March 16, 1613 a colonist named William Glissen caught four or five trout there. Crout also mentions that at the bottom of the harbour there was a little salt water pond. A stream flows through Cupids and empties into the Saltwater Pond at the bottom of the harbour. Forth: In his journal Crout refers to the headland at the entrance to the harbour as ‘the Spectacles’ Today the headland at the entrance to Cupids harbour is called Spectacle Head. Fifth: The Cupers Cove colony was located within walking distance of both Brigus and Burnt Head. Crout mentions in his journal on January 30, 1613 that he and Thomas Willoughby walked to Brigus and back that day and on March 27, 1613 Crout records walking from Cupers Cove to Burnt Head. Cupids is within easy walking distance of both places. In fact Burnt Head is now part of the town of Cupids. And, yes, Henry Crout makes frequent references to a Salmon Cove that was close to the colony. Whether of not Mr. ‘Don’ was able to find a map that shows a Salmon Cove in this area or not, anyone familiar with the area knows that there is a Salmon Cove just over the hill to the north of |Cupids. I’m sure you can find maps showing any number of Salmon Coves in Conception Bay and elsewhere in Newfoundland. While certain maps do show a Salmon Cove near present-day Avondale, that doesn’t mean that this is the Salmon Cove mentioned by the colonists and, given that all the other evidence clearly showing that Cupids and Cupers Cove are the same place, it’s obvious that the Salmon Cove mentioned by Guy and Crout is the one just north of Cupids. Bill Gilbert, Baccalieu Trail heritage Corporation Sixth: In most of the early documents the colony is referred to as Cupers Cove but in Sir William Alexander’s An Encouragement to Colonies, published in 1624, it is actually referred to as Cupids Cove. Alexander was a friend of the colony’s second governor, John Mason, and a group of colonists sent out by him had spent the winter of 1623/24 in Newfoundland. Here is what he says: "The first houses for habitation were built in Cupids Cove within the Bay of Conception where people did dwell for sundry years together, and some, well satisfied both for pleasure and profit, are dwelling there still, finding small difference between the seasons of the year in that Climate, and here.” Seventh: John Mason was governor of the Cupers Cove plantation from 1615 to1622. While he was in Newfoundland Mason surveyed much of the Island and produced a map of Newfoundland that was first published in 1625. The map clearly shows ‘Cuperts Cove’ located at the bottom of a small cove on the south side of the entrance to what is now Bay de Grave. Later 17th century maps, such as Robert Robinson’s “An Exact Map of Newfoundland Soe Far as the English and French Fishing Trade Is Concerned” published in 1669 also show Cupers Cove in the same location.

  • Winston Adams
    October 03, 2012 - 09:04

    A century after Europeans came here and committed various hostilities toward the Beothic, yet the Beothic in Guy's time were still interested in friendly relatiions and trade.For the next two centuries friendly relations were never re-established, with continual encroachment on their territory and their resources essential for their way of life. We continue to find ways to profit from their loss, now with sign posts to promote tourism through heritage. Certainly, many are ignorant of what happened in the past, helped by historical documents stored in England and unknown to historians here, and little in our history books.Did we commit genecide against the Beothic? I posed that question to the tour guide this summer at Birds Cove. His reply: "Well, not like the British did elsewhere, like putting germs in their blankets- but there was hostalities, and a loss of resources to them" I wonder, if the Beothic could tell their side,with road signs for us to read, no doubt there would be a Order-in -Council to make such signs illegal. But I suppose our signs will be a good thing, if it stimulates more interest in the details of our history. It's not all a proud history.

  • DON II
    October 03, 2012 - 08:57

    The Telegram article states: "In October 1612 John Guy and a crew of 13 headed out from Cupids to Trinity Bay...." If this story had been properly fact checked The Telegram would know that statement is NOT historically factual and is NOT correct! The Telegram continues to publish stories regarding Cupids and John Guy's alleged connection to that town without discussing the fact that historical documents and maps show that John Guy did NOT land at Cupids in 1610! The letter which John Guy wrote to Sir Percival Willoughby in 1610 contained a statement by John Guy that Cupers Cove where he made landfall was a branch of Salmon Cove. Numerous maps and the Royal Charter of the Colony of Avalon clearly show that the Salmon Cove that John Guy mentioned in his letter of October 6, 1610 was located near where the town of Avondale is now. The maps clearly show that there was no place named Salmon Cove situated near Cupids when John Guy arrived. The Salmon Cove that exists near Cupids today was located in an area which was known and referred to as Bay de Grave in the 1600's. The Salmon Cove near Cupids did not appear on any of the known maps of the Conception Bay area in the 1600's and 1700's. Accordingly, John Guy could not have referred to a place near Cupids by the name Salmon Cove because there was no place named Salmon Cove near Cupids in the 1600's! Referring to Cupids as the place from which John Guy and his men left to travel to Trinity Bay is clearly NOT correct. The historical fact is that John Guy and his men set out from Cupers Cove NOT Cupids to travel to Trinity Bay. The Telegram continues to publish the incorrect version of history when the historical maps of Conception Bay showing where Salmon Cove was located in the 1600's are available to be reviewed by any reporter interested enough to go to the map room at MUN or search the maps online. Simply repeating and publishing incorrect assumptions that Cupids is the site of the oldest English settlement in Canada will not change the historical documents and maps which clearly show that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove! If Cupids is Cupers Cove, why did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not designate the site in Cupids as the "Cupers Cove Plantation Provincial Historic Site"? The Government of Newfoundland chose instead to designate the site as the "Cupids Cove Plantation Provincial Historic Site" despite the fact that there is NO reference to any place named the Cupids Cove Plantation in the entire historical record of Newfoundland! Why did the Government of Newfoundland create a provincial historic site to commemorate a place that is NEVER mentioned in the history of Newfoundland? The Telegram continues to publish the erroneous talking points regarding Cupids as promoted by the Government of Newfoundland. It appears that The Telegram continuously publishes articles promoting Cupids as the oldest English settlement in Canada when the historical facts show that is assumption about Cupids is NOT correct? The real story to be pursued here is why is the Government of Newfoundland promoting the town of Cupids as the site of the oldest English settlement in Canada when the historical facts show that Cupids is NOT the place where John Guy landed in 1610. It appears that the Government of Newfoundland promoted Cupids as the oldest English settlement in Canada without authentication and confirmation of the historical facts and tried to cover up that serious error by creating a provincial historic site to commemorate the fictional Cupids Cove Plantation hoping that nobody would notice that glaring distortion of Newfoundland history!