Innu Nation Cultural Guardian Jodie Ashini and elders examine items that were set to be displayed as part of the Innu Pakassiun exhibit — before it was abruptly cancelled, alleging government censorship. Photo courtesy Greg Locke/Innu Nation

This story was originally published in The Independent and appears here with permission and minor style edits.

A veteran archeologist whose work is being disputed by “Newfoundland and Labrador’s” Provincial Archeology Office is speaking out about what Innu say is an effort by the provincial government to erase their history.

The province’s position is that Innu have only been in the “Labrador” portion of Nitassinan, the Innu homeland, for around 300 years.

Last month — days before Innu were set to unveil a new cultural exhibit at the provincially run Labrador Interpretation Centre on National Indigenous Peoples’ Day — exhibit co-organizer Jodie Ashini says she was instructed by executives of The Rooms to change the timeline detailing Innu presence in “Labrador,” or else move the exhibit elsewhere.

The Rooms, a Crown corporation, is the province’s official museum and archives.

Instead, Innu canceled the exhibit, Innu Pakassiun, and the fallout has continued to grow.

READ MORE: Innu Nation ‘moved to anger, to strength’ after accusing province of censoring history

Stephen Loring, an Arctic archeology and museum anthropologist with the Smithsonian’s Arctic Studies Centre in “Washington, D.C.,” says it’s “convenient” for the province to claim that the Indigenous People who lived in “Labrador” prior to European contact disappeared orwent extinct — rather than acknowledging the archeological evidence and oral history linking Innu to the territory for 8,000 years.

Loring says it appears to be an attempt to disenfranchise Innu from their history and culture so the government can weaken the Innu’s position in their land claim negotiations and in their right to participate in future land-use and economic development in the province.

“Archeologists are materialists,” he says, speaking with The Independent by phone from his home in Maryland. “Our whole way of thinking is based on material culture and how we twist the objects to tell the story that we want to tell, and it just flies in the face of cultural continuity.

“People don’t disappear.”

Richard Nuna and Edmund Benuen excavate an old Innu camping site at Amatshuatakan, 1993. Photo courtesy Stephen Loring

Innu or Beothuk ancestry debate, reconsidered

Loring has been doing fieldwork in “Labrador” since 1975, with much of his recent work taking place at Kamestastin — a lake about 140 kilometres west of Natuashish near the “Quebec-Labrador” provincial border — in conjunction with the Tshikapisk Foundation and Innu Nation

The long- and widely-held understanding that Innu presence in “Labrador” dates back thousands of years is now being challenged by the Provincial Archeology Office.

Provincial archeologists Jamie Brake, Stephen Hull and John Erwin co-authored a 2026 paper titled Labrador Beothuk: A reconsideration of the Point Revenge complex, alongside co-author Amanda Samuels from the State University of New York’s University at Albany.

They argue the “Point Revenge” people — a First Nations group living in “Labrador” prior to European contact, who the Innu say are their ancestors — did not migrate into “Labrador’s” interior, as many archeologists have believed for decades.

Instead, the authors say the “Point Revenge” people crossed the Strait of Belle Isle to “Newfoundland” around the early 1500s after being pushed out by Inuit expanding southward and Europeans arriving from the east.

The provincial archeologists argue the “Point Revenge” people merged with the Beothuk already living in “Newfoundland,” who are widely believed to have gone extinct with the death of Shanawdithit in 1829.

They also say, based on their analysis, that “there is every reason to believe that the people of the Point Revenge complex were essentially precontact and proto-historic Beothuk,” instead of ancestral Innu.

The new theory implies Innu arrived in the “Labrador” part of Nitassinan from the western portion of the Innu homeland in what’s now known as “Quebec,” and therefore have no ancestral ties to “Labrador” prior to the early 18th century.

‘Erasure of Innu history’: Grand Chief

The position contradicts Innu oral history, which puts the Innu and their ancestors on the “Quebec-Labrador” Peninsula around 8000 BP (before present), following the retreat of glaciers from what’s now known as northeastern North America.

Archeologists have long supported the Innu’s version of their own history, arguing Innu descend from the earliest First Nations People to inhabit the region, whose artifacts have been found in the “Labrador” portion of Nitassinan.

The government’s new position refutes Loring’s longstanding belief that around the time of European contact, “Point Revenge” people migrated to the interior and began hunting caribou, occasionally returning to the coast through their nomadic travels.

It also refutes another theory that the “Point Revenge” people were killed off in conflict with Europeans or other First Nations groups from what’s now known as the St. Lawrence region.

For his part, Loring believes archeology can provide a bridge between the 18th and 19th century collections of Innu materials housed in museums, and the ancestral Innu groups who lived in “Labrador.”

READ MORE: Labrador Friendship Centre celebrates Inuit, Innu cultures on National Indigenous Peoples Day

The province’s position “amounts to the erasure of Innu history,” Innu Nation Grand Chief Simon Pokue said.

“It is contrary to the accepted historical and archeological record and dismisses the knowledge, history, and lived experience of our people.”

Innu Nation, a political organization representing the people of Mushuau Innu First Nation and Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, says it’s not aware of any other working archeologists outside the provincial government who support the theory advanced by the Provincial Archeology Office.

“We will not be told who we are by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador or anyone else,” Pokue said.

“It is simply wrong for the province to use a cultural exhibit, on Indigenous Peoples Day no less, to try to rewrite the accepted history of the Labrador Innu.”

Archeological theories versus oral history

Last month, archeologists from Memorial University wrote a letter of support to Pokue and Ashini.

They expressed concern the controversy “might be more than a disagreement over wording in a museum exhibit, and rather reflect an attempt by a provincial institution to impose a narrow and outdated interpretation of archeological evidence over Innu historical knowledge, Innu oral history and a substantial body of archeological and ethnohistorical scholarship.”

Archeological interpretation “properly depends on multiple lines of evidence,” the eight co-authors wrote, “including material remains, landscape use, oral histories, linguistic evidence, ethnohistory, historical records, Indigenous knowledge, and collaborative research with descendant communities.”

They say museums and archeological institutions “have a responsibility to present evidence carefully,” and that responsibility “does not authorize them to erase Indigenous histories, dismiss oral traditions, or prevent Indigenous communities from interpreting their own heritage.

“In this case,” they write, “the reported actions of The Rooms and the Provincial Archeology Office have undermined public trust, damaged a collaborative exhibit, and caused harm to Innu Elders, knowledge holders, families, and youth.”

READ MORE: Honouring my ancestor’s remains — at a Smithsonian warehouse

Loring says while he respects the provincial archeologists as individuals, the Provincial Archeology Office — led by Jamie Brake, who has worked with the Innu — is not giving enough weight to oral history or deep evidence of language and place names, and instead appears to be interpreting the data to suit its theory.

“To value the few stone tools that archeologists find or don’t find as having more value than any oral history and traditional knowledge is disingenuous at best,” he says.

William Fitzhugh, director of the Smithsonian’s Arctic Studies Center and Loring’s mentor, was a graduate student at Harvard when he began working in “Labrador” in 1968.

He laid out the framework of time periods for Indigenous presence in the region, based on different stone tools, settlement patterns, and cultural markers, Loring explains.

The three cultural periods have three names for different people during the time periods: the “Maritime Archaic” (~8000-3200 BP), the “Intermediate Indian” (~3200-2000 BP), and the “Point Revenge” people (~2000-500 BP).

These First Nations groups all gathered on the same lands and lived similar nomadic lives using various types of tools.

A brief history of region’s ‘prehistory’

Like other academic disciplines, archeologists have developed terminology to make sense of their work and findings.

The term “prehistory” is used to describe the “period of time that predates the written word,” according to the province’s Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage website, which states that period “ended with the arrival of Europeans in the late 15th and early 16th centuries.”

The “prehistory” of “Labrador” traces back to the retreat of the Wisconsin glacial ice in the area.

By about 8000 BP, the ice that once covered northeastern North America had receded from all but the far north of the “Quebec-Labrador” Peninsula, Loring says.

When the ice melted, the Maritime Archaic people moved into the region and expanded where they were living, he explains.

When Loring began working in “Labrador” as a young researcher — alongside Memorial University’s group which included archeologist Jim Tuck — they were surprised by the age of the sites they found.

“We very quickly found sites going back to 7,000 and 8,000 years ago, so that was very exciting,” he recalls.

Today, Innu still tell the story of Kautuasukuaniskuanast, a little boy who brought back the summer and became the white-crowned sparrow, which aligns with the ice receding in the last ice age.

Innu oral history — or atanukana — is more than folk tales or legends, Napes Ashini writes in a 2018 paper co-authored with Loring and others, To Bring Back the Summer: Seeking a Concordance between Innu History and Archeology.

Oral histories “are almost historical; they connect people to their past, contain the philosophy of the Innu, transmit the morals of their hunting culture, relay lessons on the human and animal relationships that govern it, and help individuals develop strength, endurance and an ethic of autonomy within a network of obligations to others,” the authors write.

READ MORE: New research affirms ancestral knowledge, dating səlilwətaɬ fishery back to 850 BC

Anthony Jenkinson — a long-time archeologist and co-author of that paper — explains that archeologists are often used to having something physical to measure and examine.

But oral history needs to be considered and given due credibility, because it conveys historical information and reflects deep historical memory.

“Some people, primarily non-Innu people, will look at [To Bring Back the Summer] and think it’s just a legend without deeper meaning,” he says.

“But to Innu eyes, it comes across as a memory of the occupation of a land where residual glacial ice still existed.”

The tools, homes and culture of the Maritime Archaic of the “Quebec-Labrador” Peninsula remained similar from 8,000 years ago until around 3,200 years ago, a span of roughly 4,800 years, Loring explains.

Maritime Archaic peoples made most of their stone tools from Ramah chert — a type of grey flint rock found in the mountainous regions north of the Saglek Fiord in today’s Torngat Mountains National Park.

According to Loring, the Dorset Paelo-Inuit (also referred to as just “Dorset”) arrived in what’s now known as northern “Labrador” around 4,000 years ago.

The Dorset were distinct from the Thule Inuit, who migrated into what’s now known as northern “Labrador” around 1250-1450 CE (common era) and are the ancestors of Inuit who still reside there.

The Dorset Paleo-Inuit culture disappeared but is remembered in Inuit oral history.

According to archeologists, the “Intermediate Indian” complex ran from about 3200 to 2000 BP.

Loring and Jenkinson call this interval the “Shashish Innu” period, explaining it reflects a change in stone tools and culture.

Many tools at the time were made from a stone they believe may have been found in the Snegamook-Pocket Knife Lake region, north of the Naskaupi River and about 150 kilometres northwest of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

‘Still the same people’

Archeologists refer to the final “prehistory” era as the “Daniels Rattle-Point Revenge” period, which dates from 2000 BP until European contact around 500 years ago.

Loring instead calls this the “Ancestral Innu period,” noting stone tools shifted back to being made from Ramah chert instead of the chert favoured by earlier groups.

“Suddenly there’s just this switch,” Loring says.

“It’s just like, ‘We’re still the same people, we’re just making our tools out of a different stone.’”

He says the change in stone type found by archeologists is “not valid evidence for them saying it’s a totally different group of people, because otherwise they’re living in the same kind of place, they’re building the same kind of sites.”

READ MORE: In ‘Gatineau,’ Indigenous leaders celebrate belongings returned from the Vatican

This position is shared by Jodie Ashini, Innu Nation’s cultural guardian.

She says Innu tools evolved over time as her ancestors learned new methods and refined their technologies.

The “Point Revenge” people were harpooning seals, hunting walrus and harvesting other marine animals.

Loring says the Thule Inuit moved south into “Labrador” from further north around 1000 BP, and archeological evidence suggests they eventually engaged in conflict with the “Point Revenge” people over land and resources.

Following conflicts with Inuit north of modern-day Hopedale and Border Beacon along “Labrador’s” north coast, Loring believes the “Point Revenge” people moved further inland, where they transitioned from harvesting marine animals to harvesting animals like caribou.

Loring says Ancestral Innu — a term he uses interchangeably with “Point Revenge” — moved away from the Ramah Bay area in northern “Labrador” where they could access Ramah chert.

Their stone tools became smaller, were resharpened more frequently, reshaped when necessary, and only disposed of with great care and red ochre, a clay used by Innu for painting and ceremonies.

After European contact

Prior to European contact, the “Point Revenge” or Innu Ancestor peoples were living in central and interior “Labrador” and crafting their stone tools from the Ramah chert found in northern “Labrador.”

They are believed to have traded Ramah chert with other First Nations peoples living in the Strait of Belle Isle and on the island of “Newfoundland” — the ancestors of the Beothuk.

Basque Whalers arrived in “Labrador” in the 1520s to harvest oil-rich Right Whales in the Strait of Belle Isle.

Loring says they would have encountered “Point Revenge” and Beothuk peoples.

He points to an archeological site on Saddle Island near Red Bay, “which I interpret as evidence that the Innu are there, that they have contact with the Basques, that they hadn’t disappeared or gone anywhere.”

Brake, on the other hand, interprets the Saddle Island find as the largest and last “Point Revenge” site in “Labrador.”

To him, it’s where “Point Revenge,” “Little Passage” and “Anse Morel” — a First Nations culture further south in “Quebec” along the north shore of the St. Lawrence — intersected.

The provincial archeologists argue that — because the majority of the corner-notched points found at this point were made of “Newfoundland” cherts rather than Ramah chert — that means the “Point Revenge” people were already merging with their “Newfoundland” relatives and preparing to withdraw across the Strait to the island.

Divorcing ‘people from their heritage and their land’

Loring says Indigenous cultures evolve, much as Western culture does today.

“If you did archeology in New York City in the 1870s, it would all be full of horse manure,” he explains. “Horses are going everywhere.

“But if you went in 1920 — 50 years later — there’s not hardly a horse to be seen, except taking the tourists around. It’s all moved to automobiles.”

Loring says this “rapid culture change” can explain some of the gaps some archeologists see in the archeological record.

Ancestral Innu changed the type of stone tools they used, how stones were carved, among other things, he explains.

“I’m willing to push that the Innu of today have direct contact descent to the whole 8,000 years of Indian life in Labrador,” he adds.

Loring says it’s OK for the province’s archeologists to interpret the data he gathered differently than he has — and to come together with other academics in intellectual discussion and debate around archeological findings.

“We both can bring the evidence to bear on that point,” he says.

“What bothers me is this kind of policy to try to divorce people from their heritage and their land, and I think that’s what’s happening.”

Philip Earle, Liberal Member of Parliament for ‘Labrador,’ views an Innu history timeline during a visit to Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation in June. The timeline was meant to be displayed in a provincial museum on National Indigenous Peoples Day — before the event was cancelled by Innu Nation. Photo courtesy Greg Locke/Innu Nation

Archeology can be a ‘blunt instrument’

Since the controversy erupted — when The Rooms censored the Innu’s version of their history — neither the Provincial Archeology Office nor the government have publicly explained why or precisely when they changed their position to assert that Innu only occupied parts of “Labrador” after Europeans arrived.

The government also didn’t respond to The Independent’s request for clarification on the matter.

If the policy change is a result of Jamie Brake’s own work, then the government’s official position appears to come down to what other archeologists say is a flawed interpretation of a specific arrowhead.

Brake’s 2026 paper argues the distinctive corner-notched Ramah chert arrowhead is the specific and definitive mark of the “Point Revenge” people, and finding these points on the “Newfoundland” coast — and not in the “Labrador” interior — proves the “Point Revenge” people crossed to the island rather than moved inland.

The argument about where people went and who their descendants are relies heavily on whether or not the one specific style of stone arrowhead is found.

Cultures are more complex than a single arrowhead style, says Jenkinson, and archeology needs to consider Indigenous knowledge and oral history or it risks conflating stone tools with entire cultures.

“I think it almost sort of betrays the weakness of an approach where you view things in such a narrow focus” he continues.

“Although I love archeology, it is prey to that limitation, and this narrow focus on using diagnostic corner notch points for defining who is and who is not part of this or that political ethnic or cultural group?

“I think it’s a rather blunt instrument.”

The eight Memorial University archeologists who co-authored the letter of support for Innu say the position that Innu presence in “Labrador” only began around the 1700s is not a neutral scientific conclusion.

They argue the theory rests on a “methodologically flawed assumption” that changes in tools “necessarily indicate the arrival, disappearance, or replacement of distinct peoples,f and that oral history, Indigenous knowledge, land-based knowledge, and continuity of practice are secondary or inadmissible forms of evidence.”

READ MORE: Indigenous law on the ground at ancestral burial sites

While groups of pre-contact First Nations Peoples may have been related, they each had different styles of shaping their specific arrowheads, with each individual member of the groups having their own personal preferences, Loring explains.

“Style changes, things change over time.”

At a site in the Smallwood Reservoir, and at Kamestastin, archeologists have found similar notched points that have shallow side notches as opposed to deeper corner notches, Loring says, offering an example.

There are also differently notched points found all together in Saddle Island, in the Strait of Belle Isle.

So while the Provincial Archeology Office interprets style changes as evidence of distinct Indigenous groups who made them, Loring says the changes simply reflect changing styles through time.

This happens throughout history, which is why, he says, “I don’t put that emphasis as much on those stylistic differences.”

Loring says it can be challenging to find Innu archeological sites because of the way Innu respected the land and did not leave as many traces of their camps through the years, but that doesn’t mean Innu weren’t there.

This challenge is “just the problem that this is all boiling down to,” he adds.

Can Innu-provincial relationship be repaired?

Jenkinson hopes the damage to provincial-Innu relations can be repaired.

He wonders if non-Innu people with the province understand just how much damage and hurt has been caused by promoting this theory and enforcing it the way they did.

“It may be partly explainable by a lack of understanding of the nuances,” he says.

“Science can be quite arrogant in the face of ways of knowing about the world which are different to the conventional Western vehicles for inquiry into how it all works.”

READ MORE: Child welfare system carries on residential ‘school’ legacy, Innu families tell inquiry: ‘When is it going to stop?’

Loring says Indigenous Peoples, “from one end of the continent to the other have had to deal with Europeans claiming their land.”

Now the province is continuing that tradition and its “Western way of thinking,” he says.

“And it flies in the face of Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous perceptions.”

Loring says archeology is “wildly political” and can be misinterpreted for political means.

“I disagree with those that claim archeology as a science isn’t political,” he notes, “that it isn’t subject to misinterpretation to promote a political agenda like land claims.”

The post ‘Newfoundland’ claims Europeans arrived before the Innu. ‘People don’t disappear,’ counters archeologist appeared first on Indiginews.

From Indiginews via This RSS Feed.