 |
Recipe of the day
Slow Cooker Pulled Pork Tacos
More >>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last updated at 12:10 PM on 10/06/09 |
Cupids400 Legacy 
Historic colony reaps $1.8 million boost from province
BILL BOWMAN
Transcontinental Media
|
 |
| IN TUNE - Jana Cole of Marysvale and Maggie Burton, Brigus entertained the crowd with some jigs and reels during an event in Cupids last week. |
|
Two coffee mugs with Christmas themes have been forgotten on a picnic table with a harbour view near a blue and white sign that reads: "John Guy landed here."
Across the street a white traditional church is bordered by headstones - some white marble from the early 1900s and some polished granite. Up the road there are classic Ford pickups parked in front of homes with vinyl siding.
The old-new dichotomy is everywhere in Cupids, a town with a 399-year history.
Within the year the contrast will be more blatant when the town's museum - an ancient two-story schoolhouse - gets a makeover and addition in glass and steel.
Premier Danny Williams stood in front of the old schoolhouse last Monday, June 1 to announce nearly $2 million in (provincial) funding to help build the addition, which will house nearly 110,000 artifacts dug up from the Cupids archeological site.
The museum, which will be called the Cupids400 Legacy Centre, will be an interpretation and genealogical research centre that celebrates the history of Canada's first English speaking colony. The centre will house more than 110,000 artifacts uncovered since the discovery of the original John Guy Plantation site in 1995. It will also include a history/genealogical resource centre, a multi-purpose hall, and an archaeology lab where visitors will learn about the processes of archaeology.
The $1.8-million investment in the museum building brings the provincial contribution to the Cupids400 celebration to nearly $4 million.
After the formal announcement, Williams said he has faith that tourism can sustain rural communities in this province.
"I'm a big believer in that," he said, adding that belief is why the province has "quadrupled" its tourism spending since he was elected premier.
"Having said that, this is different. This is a very special event."
Williams said the 400th anniversary celebrations for the first English-speaking colony in Canada is of national and international importance.
"This is money well spent. This is not just a big party next year, it's much more than next year."
Tourism will hopefully be an economic driver in the financially strapped town, says Mayor Geraldine Curran.
Curran said she thinks the celebration year will have a positive effect on the town's economy and the community itself.
"I suppose there's no such thing as enough, but it's a start, right?" she said.
Roy Dawe, chairman Cupids400 Inc. said: "We are delighted to have this final portion of funding confirmed. The province has been behind the Cupids anniversary project from the beginning and today's announcement means our new Legacy Centre will be a world-class facility and an important attraction in the Northern Avalon region," Dawe suggested.
Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson, who is also MHA for Harbour Main, noted the construction of the centre is expected to get underway next month (July).
"The Cupids400 celebrations will focus worldwide attention on our province, and the Legacy Centre will serve as an anchor attraction to draw visitors to the area, said Tourism Minister Clyde Jackman.
Federal-provincial
The provincial funding announced last week is in addition to federal funding also committed to the project.
Standing in almost the same spot last August, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced $3.14 million to help Cupids celebrate its milestone.
At the time the PM noted the latest federal support "is on top of the funding our government earmarked in February for the Cupids Interpretation Complex."
Harper was referring to the $1.5 million announced at the end of February 2008 from the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency (ACOA's) Innovative Communities Fund. Combined with earlier start-up funds, the feds have spent or committed close to $5 million for the project. That would bring the total federal-provincial contributions to date to close to $9 million.
The total budget to design and construct the Interpretation Centre and to plan and carry out the Cupids400 celebrations was projected last year to run around $8.5 million.
The latest provincial commitment came just six months before the beginning of the calendar year 2010, when Cupids will mark its quadracentennial. It also comes after years of lobbying various levels of government, during which Cupids400 Inc. sometimes found itself caught in the middle of an ongoing provincial-federal feud over broken promises on the Atlantic Accord.
The events around the 400th anniversary celebrations in Cupids - which will culminate in a week of activities August 17-22, 2010 - are projected to inject $15 million into the provincial economy and provide long-term tourism-related benefits to the town and region.
amorrissey@thetelegram.com
|
09/06/09
|
Comments: |
|
This Conversation is Moderated. What is moderation?
|
| What does moderation mean? |
 |
The Compass is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.
This is a moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes to a moderator for the website. Once it has been approved, your comment will be displayed on the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.
All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
don from Newfoundland & Labrador writes: It appears that politics is driving force behind the Cupids 400 celebration. Funding announcements, ribbons to cut and photo-ops galore. It appears that people are convinced that John Guy landed at Cupids in 1610. The historic record shows that Guy landed at a place called Cuper's Cove which was a branch of Salmon Cove. However, maps from the 17th century show that there were only two places named Salmon Cove in Conception Bay in 1610, one near Carbonear and the other at what is now Avondale. There was no place called Salmon Cove near Cupids in 1610. Clearly, Cuper's Cove was located near Avondale not Cupids. The idea that Cupids is Cuper's Cove is based on the fact that Cupids is located near a place called Salmon Cove today. Local myth is being promoted as fact. Claims have also been promoted that it is believed that the remains of some of the original Cuper's Cove colonists has been discovered buried in Cupids. Have these remains been exhumed and examined by forensic anthropologists in order to prove the identities of the bodies? Where is the conclusive proof that John Guy landed at Cupids in 1610? I'd like to see some proof of these types of claims before millions more tax dollars are spent.
|
| Posted 15/06/2009 at 1:20 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Bill Gilbert from Blaketown, newfoundland and Labrador writes: John Mason was the second governor of the Cupers Cove Plantation. He arrived in Newfoundland in 1616 and spent a lot of his seven years on the Island surveying the coast. In 1625 his map of Newfoundland was published and it shows what he called ‘Cuperts Cove’ located exactly where the town of Cupids is located today. A number of other 17th century maps also show Cupers Cove, or Coopers Cove, exactly where Cupids is today.
The place-name Cupids itself first appeared in print in 1624. Sir William Alexander was a friend of John Mason. In 1622 he send a group of colonists out to settle the place he called Nova Scotia. That attempt failed and his men spent the winter of 1622-1623 in St. John’s, Newfoundland. The colonists made another unsuccessful attempt to settle Nova Scotia in the summer of 1623. Later that summer they returned to St. John’s and then moved on to Conception Bay where they sold their ship and sailed back to England with a group of West Country fishermen.
In 1624 Alexander published a book called “An Encouragement to Colonies”. In a section on Newfoundland (page 24) he states that:
“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.” If anyone cares to check it out , there is a microfiche copy of Alexander’s book at the Queen Elizabeth II Library at Memorial University
These are just two of the many pieces of evidence that prove beyond any doubt that Cupers Cove and Cupids are one and the same place. The 400 anniversary of the founding of the first English colony in Canada at Cupids in 1610 is an event of major provincial, national and international significance. Thanks to Danny Williams and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for all their support for this extremely important project.
|
| Posted 15/06/2009 at 8:34 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
don from Newfoundland & Labrador writes: The historical record shows that Cupids was called Cuetes, Cubits and Cupits but not Cuper's Cove. Cupids and Cuper's Cove were two separate and distinct locations in the 17th century. In a letter dated October 6, 1610, John Guy stated that Cuper's Cove was a branch of Salmon Cove. A map drawn by John Sellers circa 1671 shows Cupers Cove to be situated between Collier's Bay and Holyrood. A map drawn by William Hacke circa 1677 shows the location of Salmon Cove to be between Collier's Bay and Holyrood. A map drawn by Robert Sayer and John Bennett circa 1771 shows that Salmon Cove was located between Collier's Bay and Holyrood. The only other place called Salmon Cove which existed in Conception Bay in the 17th and 18th centuries was located near Carbonear. There is no record of a place called Salmon Cove being located near Cupids in the 17th century. We know that John Guy did not land near Carbonear, accordingly, in his letter of October 6, 1610, the Salmon Cove to which John Guy referred must have been the one located between Collier's Bay and Holyrood where Avondale is now situated. Consequently, Cuper's Cove must have been located between Collier's Bay and Holyrood. Clearly, Cupids cannot be Cuper's Cove. Conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion are no substitute for historical and scientific fact. Has any of the slag found at the site in Cupids been subjected to metallurgic and other scientific testing to determine its composition, age and origin? Do the rocks found at the site in Cupids bear the marks of a stone mason and any limestone mortar? Apart from conjecture and opinion, what scientific examinations have been undertaken to confirm the identities of the human remains at the site or to confirm the origin and composition of the slag or the era of stones found on the property? Did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador require that the site in Cupids be independently scientifically investigated and authenticated prior to providing millions of dollars in funding? If not, why not? Myth and theory are not sufficient to warrant the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars. There are numerous other questions regarding the purported authenticity of the site in Cupids which must be answered with fact not fiction!
|
| Posted 15/06/2009 at 10:10 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
don from Newfoundland & Labrador writes: With regard to any reliance on the John Mason map circa 1625 as evidence of the location of Cuper's Cove. In his book entitled A History of Newfoundland published in 1895, D.W. Prowse Q.C. addressed the lack of authenticity of John Mason's 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....The map belongs to the Anglo-Dutch group, and is mainly of French origin. It is clear that the accuracy of John Mason's map is extremely questionable. There are no landmarks contained in the Mason map which would assist in determining the the exact location of Cupert's Cove within Conception Bay. Consequently, Mason's map cannot be relied upon and is of no assistance in determining the exact location of Cuper's Cove. In his letter of October 6, 1610, John Guy spelled the name of the place where he landed as Cuperre's Cove. As John Mason was at one time the Governor of the colony established by John Guy at Cuperre's Cove in Conception Bay Newfoundland, it is peculiar that he spelled the name of the colony as Cupert's Cove. Or, more likely, it was not Mason who spelled the name Cupert's Cove at all, but rather it was misspelled by whomever it was who actually constructed the map. In all probability the real author of the Mason map had never set foot in Cuperre's Cove and consequently could neither spell it's name correctly nor plot it's location accurately on the Mason map.
|
| Posted 15/06/2009 at 10:33 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
don from Newfoundland & Labrador writes: I would like a response from anyone who has answers to the following questions: Have the human remains which were apparently found in 2008 at the archaeological site in Cupids been exhumed and subjected to forensic anthropological examination, DNA analysis, mass spectrometer testing or other scientific investigation in order to determine their ethnicity, gender, cause of death, time of death and personal identification? Is there independent confirmation of scientific evidence which conclusively proves that the remains are actually those of the original colonists who died at Cuper's Cove? What are the names and dates of birth and death inscribed on the gravestones found at the site? Apart from the clearly useless John Mason map, has there been any actual independent confirmation of documentary and scientific evidence which conclusively proves that Cupids is Cuper's Cove? Has the slag and charcoal found at the site in Cupids been subjected to metallurgical testing and carbon dating to determine its composition and date of manufacture? Have the rocks found at the site in Cupids been examined for evidence of stone masonry construction? Has the limestone mortar been tested to determine its exact composition and date of manufacture? What artifacts found at the site in Cupids have been conclusively proven to be directly linked to John Guy? What percentage of all the artifacts found at the site in Cupids are from the period 1610 to 1630? Were the foregoing examinations, investigations and testing completed and the results made available to the public? If not, why not? Did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador obtain independent authentication of the site in Cupids prior to providing millions of taxpayer dollars in funding? If not, why not?
|
| Posted 18/06/2009 at 3:02 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
NOTE
The management of this site emphasizes that it is in no way liable for persons, physical or legal, who are hosted here. Moreover, the managers of this site may not be held liable for errors and omissions that may slip into the information displayed in these reader comments. Everyone who submits a comment should read, understand and agree to the Terms of Usage for this section.
|
|
|
|
|
1
