• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • DON II
    October 25, 2012 - 09:33

    In response to Larry. Whether you care to admit it or not, there are serious questions which will require investigation and answers regarding the creation of a dubious Provincial Historic Site in Cupids. Any claim that Henry Crout would build his dwelling house OUTSIDE of the Palisade which John Guy constructed to protect the Cupers Cove Plantation from attack by hostile forces is simply not plausible and defies logic. There is a photograph of the site in Cupids taken in 1910 that was used in a series of Post Cards during the 300th Anniversary celebrations of Cupids which identified the site as the "Sea Forest Plantation". Historians know that the Sea Forest Plantation was NEVER located in Cupids. It appears that despite being aware of such historical inaccuracies, the Government of Newfoundland chose to promote a fictional version of the history of Cupids! The question to be answered is WHY? The remains of dwelling houses, root cellars and people have been found at a site in Cupids but there is NO PROOF that these remains and artifacts are connected in any way to John Guy and his colonists. The Government of Newfoundland expropriated private property to create a Provincial Historic Site to commemorate a fictional place called the "Cupids Cove Plantation" which NEVER existed in Newfoundland history. It appears that the Government of Newfoundland provided Millions of tax payer dollars in order to promote a fictional version of Newfoundland history in Cupids. It is apparent that the real location of Cupers Cove has not been found in Cupids. It also appears that the Government of Newfoundland undertook without due diligence to spend Millions of tax payer dollars to promote a fictionalized version of history in Cupids. Instead of insisting that the real location of Cupers Cove and the Cupers Cove Plantation be found and authenticated, the Government of Newfoundland simply capitalized on a well known myth regarding Cupids for tourism promotion and political ribbon cutting opportunities. It appears, based on historic documents, that the Cupers Cove Plantation was actually situated within the boundaries of the Colony of Avalon. Instead of promoting and funding the history of the Colony of Avalon which apparently acquired the Cupers Cove Plantation situated within its boundaries near Avondale, the Government of Newfoundland chose to promote and fund the fictional history of the town of Cupids which had absolutely no connection with John Guy, the Sea Forest Plantation or the Cupers Cove Plantation!

  • Larry
    October 24, 2012 - 20:30

    Don, why don't you give it a rest. The ship has sailed on your limp arguments.

  • Ross DAWE
    October 24, 2012 - 14:10

    I congratulate Lillian Simmons and the Telegram on the very informative article. Also hats off to Bill Gilbert who continues to make history come alive in Newfoundland.Cupids is becoming a tourist destination and many local businesses in the area and other tourist sites are reaping the benefits.

  • DON II
    October 24, 2012 - 11:57

    I wish to respond to the comments attributed to Bill Gilbert that: "John Guy talks about enclosing an area 90 by 120 feet and building his first dwelling and storehouse inside that area" and "If this is Crout's upper house, that would imply the lower house was on the low ground to the west of terrace." It appears that the archaeologists are searching for the "lower house" purportedly built by John Guy at Cupids in an area of land situated behind the"Spracklin House". It is highly improbable that John Guy would have built a "lower house" near the seashore if it was his intent to protect his dwelling house from hostile and armed attack from armed pirates or foreign ships armed with long range cannons. John Guy built a Palisade and constructed his dwelling house and storehouse INSIDE the Palisade at Cupers Cove which Mr. Gilbert claims is located at the site in Cupids. It appears that the 'Spracklin House" which was expropriated from the Dawe family is not located inside of the area of land which was the purported site of the Palisade built by John Guy. If the remains of a building are unearthed behind the "Spracklin House" those building remains would certainly have nothing to do with John Guy and his colonists. Why would John Guy or anyone else build their dwelling house OUTSIDE the walls of their Palisade fort in an area controlled by hostile Pirates and foreign ships armed with heavy cannons? The flawed logic, unproven claims, myths, folklore, implied conclusions, disclaimers, caveats and pure speculation relied on by the promoters of the purported history of Cupids should have raised serious concerns in the Government as to the historic accuracy, veracity and authenticity of claims regarding the purported history of Cupids prior to the expenditure of Millions of tax payer dollars to promote the Town of Cupids as an historic site connected to John Guy.

  • fyi
    October 24, 2012 - 10:28

    Well Don ll after all that maybe you should be out assisting the professionals and once again tell them how to do their job and what is wrong with the information in their findings since you be somewhat of a historian. Maybe you should have written your own article.

  • DON II
    October 24, 2012 - 09:12

    I must respectfully criticize the content of this article in the public interest and I trust that the Editor of The Telegram will publish my remarks. The Federal and Provincial Governments have poured Millions of tax payer dollars into promoting the purported history of Cupids that is based on unfounded and unproven claims.There are serious questions which must be asked and answered regarding the claims being promoted about the purported history of Cupids.The purported historical significance of Cupids is based on unproven claims that Cupids is the location of Cupers Cove where John Guy and his colonists landed in 1610. The Telegram regularly publishes articles designed to promote the purported history of Cupids and the archaeological site located there. The Telegram erroneously continues to refer to the site in Cupids as being established by John Guy in 1610. It appears that the Government has been promoting and funding Cupids history propaganda without engaging in due diligence, fact checking, obtaining independent research or challenging the accuracy of the claims being made about the purported history of Cupids. The unproven claims about Cupids have been promoted for over 100 years and are deeply ingrained as an established historical fact. This ingrained belief makes it a simple matter for anyone who wants to promote the myths about Cupids history and difficult for anyone to challenge the accuracy or veracity of those myths and unproven claims. It appears that the promoters of Cupids history intend to repeat and publish the unproven claims over and over until the media and the public accepts them as settled historical fact. I have researched the historical documents, letters and maps, some of which were suppressed from public view or improperly interpreted and have discovered that the documents show beyond a doubt that Cupids is NOT the place where John Guy landed in 1610! The article quotes Archaeologist Bill Gilbert as stating that: "You can pretty much dig anywhere here and find something." That is not surprising as the site in Cupids is an early homestead not unlike many other similar homesteads in Conception Bay that are recorded in The Plantation Books. You can dig on practically any property in early established communities in Conception Bay and find 17th century artifacts. The article also states: "The crew has unearthed a dwelling house and storehouse, almost certainly built in 1610." Why use the caveat disclaimer: "almost certainly"? Were the buildings actually constructed in 1610 or not? Were the buildings actually constructed by John Guy or not? There appears to be a liberal use of "imagination" to support these so called historical findings. It appears that the use of disclaimers such as "very likely", "there is little doubt" or "what else could it be?" have been used in the past to support the unfounded claims being made about the site in Cupids. As for the so called defensive wall, I have reviewed photographs taken of Cupids in the late 1800's and early 1900's which clearly show that early land owners in the town built rock walls about 3 or 4 feet high with wooden fence posts and rails positioned on top of the rock wall base. That does not make those walls "defensive walls". These rock and wooden fences were used to delineate property boundaries and to keep livestock inside the fenced area. These rock walls and fences would be useless as a defense against a powerful cannon barrage or an armed attack. The site in Cupids which is purported to be where John Guy built his colony is located so near to the harbor as to be totally indefensible against cannon fire or armed attack. In the violent early 1600's the site in Cupids would be an improbable location to establish a colony safe from attack by ships at sea. The letters and journals written by John Guy and Henry Crout never mention a place called Cupids and both Guy and Crout stated they were writing their letters in Cupers Cove NOT in Cupids. As for the graves that are mentioned, there is absolutely no forensic or physical evidence offered to conclusively prove that the people who are buried on the site are the colonists who accompanied John Guy to Cupers Cove. It is probable that the graves contain the remains of the early owners of the homestead site in Cupids. It appears that the gravestones on at least two of the graves were manufactured in the 18th century around 1720 to 1780 and NOT in the 17th century and certainly not in1610! All of the talk, media promotion and claims about John Guy and Cupids are a moot point as the historic records, letters and maps show that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove! On October 6, 1610 John Guy wrote a letter in which he stated that Cupers Cove where he made landfall was a branch of or near to a place called Salmon Cove. The historic documents, letters and maps show that the Salmon Cove to which John Guy referred was located near where the town of AVONDALE is located now. The historic records and maps do not show any place called Salmon Cove being located near Cupids in the 1600's. If proper research had been conducted by those promoting Cupids history they would have discovered that the Salmon Cove which existed when John Guy arrived at Cupers Cove in 1610 was NOT located anywhere near Cupids. Accordingly, it is not possible that Cupids is the location of Cupers Cove. The Salmon Cove located near AVONDALE was also used as boundary for the Charter of the Colony of Avalon. Historic documents and letters show that in addition to the Plantation at Ferryland, another plantation referred to as "our northern plantation" was contained within the boundary of the Colony of Avalon in 1622 which could only have been the Cupers Cove Plantation. The boundaries of the Colony of Avalon did not extend anywhere near to Cupids. The Colony of Avalon boundaries included the land where AVONDALE is located now and accordingly, the "northern plantation" at Cupers Cove must have been located somewhere between AVONDALE and Holyrood. The historic documents, letters and maps, properly researched and interpreted show that the colony established by John Guy in 1610 at Cupers Cove was located somewhere between Avondale and Holyrood. The Government of Newfoundland designated the site in Cupids as the "Cupids Cove Plantation Provincial Historic Site" despite the fact that a place called the "Cupids Cove Plantation" is NEVER mentioned in the historic record of Newfoundland. For unexplained reasons, the Government of Newfoundland created a Provincial Historic Site in Cupids to commemorate a place that NEVER existed in Newfoundland history! It appears that the Government of Newfoundland has no evidence to conclusively prove that the archaeological site in Cupids is the authentic site of the Cupers Cove Plantation established by John Guy in 1610. Accordingly, the Government of Newfoundland chose not to designate the site in Cupids as the authentic site of the Cupers Cove Plantation! The continual promotion of the purported history of Cupids will not change the historical documents, letters and maps that show that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove. Despite unfounded claims about the purported history of Cupids and the Millions of tax payer dollars spent to promote it, the historic documents, letters and maps show that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove and that John Guy did NOT build a Plantation at Cupids in 1610!