cultural heritage resources - · pdf filecultural heritage resources report 4 of 9 ......
TRANSCRIPT
January 2009
Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
CCuullttuurraall HHeerriittaaggee RReessoouurrcceess
Report 4 of 9
CCoommppoonneenntt SSttuuddiieessSSoocciioo--EEccoonnoommiicc EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt
Historic Resources Overview Assessment 1998-2000Volume 1
Interpretation Summary and Recommendations
JWEL/INNU ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT NO. 1502/1020
LABRADOR HYDRO PROJECT
CHURCHILL RIVER POWER PROJECTHISTORIC RESOURCES OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT 1998-2000
VOLUME I
INTERPRETATIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONSLHP 00-17C
OCTOBER 2001
JWEL/INNU ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT NO. 1502/1020
LABRADOR IIYDRO PROJECT
CHURCI-IILL RIVER POWER PROJECT1-IISTORIC RESOURCES OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT 1998-2000
VOLUME 1
INTERPRETATIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONSLHP 00-17C
SUBMITTED TO
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HYDRO500 COLUMBUS DRIVE
ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLANDAlA 2X8
BY
JACQUES WHITFORD ENVIRONMENT LIMITED607 TORBAY ROAD
ST. JOHN'S, NP AlA 4Y6Tel: (709) 576-1458Fax: (709) 576-2126
AND
INNU ENVIRONMENTALP.O. BOX 1020, STATION "C"
GOOSE BAY, LABRADOR, NF AOP 1COTel: (709) 896-2070Fax: (709) 896-3277
OCTOBER 24, 2001
CREDIT SHEET (1998)Report AuthorsFred Schwarz (IBDE)Marianne Stopp (LEDE)Yves Labrèche (JWEL)Roy Skanes (JWEL)Patty Wells (JWEL)
Background ResearchMarianne Stopp (IEDE)Patty Wells (JWEL)Elaine Anton (Curator, Newfoundland Museum)Yves Labréche (JWEL)Fred Schwarz (IEDE)
Field Team Leaders
Fred Schwarz (TEDE)Yves Labréche (JWEL)Roy Skanes (JWEL)Steven Loring (LEDE)Lisa Fogt (JWEL)
Training Proram!Field WorkSimon Andrew (IEDE)*Christopher Gregoire (IEDE)Winnie Gregoire (IEDE)David Hart Jr. (IEDE)Pamela Hurley (IBDE)Bart Jack Jr. (IEDE)*John Jack (IEDE)Herman Montague (IEDE)Garfield Nui ([EDE)Kenny Nuna ([EDE)Clarence Osmond (IEDE)Bernice Fenashue (LEDE)Rose Marie Penashue (IEDE)Gordon Penunsi (IEDE)Barbara Rich (IEDE)Raymond Rich (LEDE)George F. Snow (IEDE)
Ethnographic InterviewsDeanna Letto (JWEL)Yves Labréche (JWEL)Marianne Stopp ([EDE)
Scientific Advisors, Teclin ical Advisors and ReviewersTrevor Bell (JWEL)Norman Catto (JWEL)Linda Jefferson (LHP)John Kennedy (IBDE)José Mailbot (IEDE)Greg Penashue (JWEL)Karen Roberts (JWEL)Elizabeth Young (LHP)
*participants in training program only.
Professional ConsultationPeter Armitage (Anthropologist, Innu Nation)Chuck Bradley (Material Culture Researcher, Canadian Heritage)Martha Drake (Resource Archaeologist, Culture Heritage Division)Robert Ferguson (Archaeologist, Canadian Heritage)Claudinc Giroux (Ministére de Ia Culture et des Communications,Québec)Gerard Gusset (Material Culture Researcher, Canadian Heritage)Kathy Knox (Biologist, JWEL)Andras Mak, Mamit InnuatGail Malone (Provincial Libraries)Delphina Mercer (Culture and l-[eritage Division)Anne Morton (Archivist, Hudson's Bay Company Archives)Ken Reynolds (Archaeologist, Culture and Heritage Division)Heather Wareham (Archivist, Maritime History Archives)Sec also lED Enterprises Inc. in partnership with Jacques WhitfordEnvironment Limited 2000: Section 15.1.
Artifact ConservationWade Greeley (Conservation Heritage Services)
Artifact CataloguingYves Labréche (JWEL)Roy Skanes (JWI3L)Patty Wells (JWEL)
DrpgDave Kersey (JWEL)Paula Dalton (JWEU)
Report FormattingTheresa Fry (JWEL)Beverley Best (JWEL)
Project Maemeiit and CoordinationLeslie Grattan (LI-IF)Yves Labréche (JWEL)Larry LeDrew (LI-IF)Mary Murdoch (JWEL)Greg Nuna ([BOB)Kathy Penney (JWEL)Mark Salvor (IEDE)Susan Toiler (LHP)Perry Trimper (JWEL)Ellen Tracy (JWEL)Elizabeth Young (LI-IF)
InformantsAlexandra ConoverBrian GreenEdward MontagueCynthia O'DriscollBruce RyanTwo unnamed Settler informants (as per confidentiality agreement).
NOTE: For a more detailed account of project participants and roles in 1998 see Section 2.5, LED Enterprises Inc. in partnership withJacques Whitford Environment Limited 2000. Churchill River Power Project 1998 Environmental Studies. Historic Resources OverviewAssessment, Labrador Component. LHP 98l7. Final Report prepared for Labrador 1-lydro Project, St. John's, NE.
interpretative Stnnina,y raid Reconmenda lions • October 24, 200! Page i
CREDIT SHEET (1999)port Authors
Fred Schwarz ([nnu Environmental)Yves Labrêche (JWEL)Roy Skanes (JWEL)Marianne Stopp (Innu Environmental)
Back!round ResearchMarianne Stopp (Innu Environmental)Fred Schwarz (Innu Environmental)Yves Labrèche (JWEL)
Professional ConsultationPeter Armilage (Anthropologist, lnnu Nation)Martha Drake (Resource Archaeologist, Provincial ArchaeologyOffice)Richard Hendriks (Innu Nation)Kathy Knox (Biologist, JWEL)Deiphina Mercer (Archaeologist, Provincial ArchaeologyOffice)Ken Reynolds (Archaeologist, Provincial Archaeology Office)
Fiekl Team LeadersFred Schwarz (Innu Environmental)Yves Labrche (JWEL)Roy Skanes (JWEL)Marianne Stopp (Innu Environmental)Cohn Varley (JWEL)
Training Program/Field WorkHerbert Andrew (Innu Environmental)Winnie Gregoire (Innu Environmental)David Hart Jr (Jnnu Environmental)John Jack (Innu Environmental)Darren McKay (Innit Environmental)Garfield Nui (lnnu Environmental)Kenny Nuna (Innu Environmental)Richard Nuna (lnnu Environmental)Bernice Penashue (irinu Environmental)George Rich (Innu Environmental)
Ethnograp Ide Interviews and TranslationEticnnc Andrew (Innu Environmental)Herbert Andrew (Innu Environmental)Yves Labrèche (IWEL)Simon Michel Jr. (Irmu Environmental)Richard Nuna (Innu Environmental)
Tech nical Advisors and ReviewersDouglas Nixon (LHP)Ellen Tracy (JWEL)Elizabeth Young (LI-IF)Provincial Archaeology Office (Culture and Heritage Division)Task Force (LHP and Innu Nation)
Artifact ConservationWade Greeley (Heritage Conservation Services)
Artifact CataloguingFred Schwarz (Innu Environmental)Roy Skanes (JWEL)
DraftingDave Kersey (JWEL)Paula Dalton (JWEL)
Report FormattingTheresa Fry (JWEL)l3everley Best (JWEL)
Prolect Management and CoordinationKatherine Fleet (Innu Environmental)Leslie Grattan (LHP)Caroline Hong (JWEL)Yves Labrèche (JWEL)Larry LeD rew (LHP)Colleen Leeder (JWEL)Greg Nuna (Innu Environmental)Virginia Pater (Innu Environmental)Kathy Penney (JWEL)Susan Toiler (LI-IP)Ellen Tracy (JWEL)Perry Trimper (JWEL)Elizabeth Young (LHP)
InformantsTwo unnamed Innu senior informants (as per confidentialityagreement)
NOTE: For a more detailed account of project participanls and roles during the 1999 study, see Section 2.6.2, Jacques WhitfordEnvironment Limited and Innu Environmental 2001. Churchill River Power Project 1999 Environmental Studies. 1-listoric Resources(Labrador Study). Report submitted to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, St. John's, NF.
Interpretative Suwinaiy and Reconi, cnulnlion.y • October 24, 200/ Page ii
CREDIT SHEET (2000)Report AuthorsFred Schwarz (Innu Environmental)Yves Labrèchc (JWEL)
Background ResearchFred Schwarz (Innu Environmental)Yves Labréche (JWEL,)
Archaeological Potential MaingFred Schwarz (Innu Environmental)Yves Labréche (JWEL)David Kearsey (JWEL)Steve Bettles (JWEL)Christopher Gregoire (Innu Environmental)Winnie Grego ire (Inn u Environmental)Bernice Penashue (Innu Environmental)Jason Codnor (JWEL)Robbie Coish (JWEL)
Field Team LeadersFred Schwarz (Innu Environmental)Yves Labréche (JWEL)Marianne Stopp (Innu Environmental)Cohn Varley (JWEL)
Training Program/Field VorkArchie Andrew (Innu Environmental)Herbert Andrew (Innu Environmental)Christopher Gregoire (Innu Environmental)Winnie Gregoire (Innu Environmental)John Jack (Innu Environmental)Dan-en McKay (Irinu Environmental)Garfield Nui (innu Environmental)Kenny Nuna (Innu Environmental)Samson Pastiwet (Innu Environmental)Bernice Penashue (Innu Environmental)Rose Marie Penashue (Innu Environmental)George Rich (Innu Environmental)George Snow (Innu Environmental)
Translation
Etienne Andrew (Ennu Environmental)
Technical Advisors and ReviewersBruce Bennett (JWEL)Larry LeDrew (LHP)Ellen Tracy (JWEL)Elizabeth Young (LHP)Provincial Archaeology Office (Culture and 1-Ecritage Division)Task Force (LHP and Innu Nation)
Professional ConsultationPeter Armitage (Anthropologist, Innu Nation)Martha Drake (Resource Archaeologist, Provincial ArchaeologyOffice)Claudine Giroux (Ministére de Ia Culture et desCommunications, QC)Richard Hendriks (Innu Nation)Stephen Hull (Archaeologist, Provincial Archaeology Office)Stephen Loring (Archaeologist, Smithsonian Institution, DC)Marguerite Mackenzie (Linguist Specialist, MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland)Moira McCaffrey (Archaeologist, MeCord Museum, QC)José Mailhot (Anthropologist, QC)Delphina Mercer (Archaeologist, Provincial ArchaeologyOffice)Ken Reynolds (Archaeologist, Provincial Archaeology Office)
Artifact ConservationWade Greeley (Heritagc Conservation Services)
Artifact CatalogningFred Schwarz (Innu Environniental)Yves Labréche (JWEL)
DraftingDave Kersey (JWEL)Paula Dalton (JWEL)Peter Amiitage (Innu Nation)
Report FormattingTheresa Fry (JWEL)Beverley Best (JWEL)
Project Management and CoordinationCaroline Hong (JWEL)Yves Labrèche (JWEL)Larry LeDrew (LHP)Colleen Leeder (JWEL)Greg Nuna (Innu Environmental)Virginia Pater (Innu Environmental)Paula Reid (Innu Environmental)Ellen Tracy (JWEL)Perry Trimper (JWEL)Elizabeth Young (LHP)
NOTE; For a more detailed account of project parlicipants and roles during the 2000 studies, see Section 2.6.2 in Jacques WhitfordEnvironment Limited and Innu Environmental 2001. Churchill River Power Project 2000 Studies. Historic Resources Field Program.Report submitted to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, St. John's, NF and Section 2.6.2, Jacques WliitIord Environment Limited andInnu Environmental 2001. Churchill River Power Project 2000 Studies. Historic Resources Potential Mapping . Vol. 1, Report submittedto Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, St. John's, NF.
Interpretative Summary and Recoauinendations • October 24, 2001 Page /11
....................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
........................
...................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
.................................................................................
...............................................................................
..............................................................
...............................................................................................................................
............................................................................
..........................................................................................
............................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.............................................................
...............................
....................
...................................................................
................................................................
.........................................................................................
.....................................................................................
......................................................................
................................................................................................................
......................................................................................
......................................................................
...............................................................
..........................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
VOLUME 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Credit Sheet (1998) 1
Credit Sheet (1999) H
Credit Sheet (2000)
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
11.1 Historic Resources Overview Assessment of the Churchill River Power Project1.2 Phase I (1998) Work Completed 4
1.3 Phase 11(1999) Work Completed 6
1.4 Phase 111 (2000 Mapping) Work Completed 8
1.5 Phase IV (2000 Fieldwork) Work Completed 9
2.0 OVERVIEW OF TESTING EFFORT AND RESULTS 13
2.1 Testing Effort 132.1.1 Testing Effort By Project Component 132.1.2 Testing Effort By Zone Type 152.1.3 Testing Effort By Elevation 16
2.2 Results 17
183.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
3.1 Summary of Results 183.2 Precontact Settlement Patterns in the Project Area iS
3.2.1 Cultural Affiliation 183.2.2 19Site Distribution3.2.3 19Site Features3.2.4 Site Elevations 203.2.5 Site Function and Seasonality 203.2.6 The Predominance of Intennediate Period Sites 213.2.7 Lithic Variation Between Sites of Hypothesized Intermediate Age 223.2.8 Maritime Archaic and Late Precontact Settlement on the Churchill River 233.2.9 Summary of Precontact Settlement Patterns 25
3.3 Early Historic Settlement Patterns in the Project Area 263.3.1 Hudsons Bay Company Posts 26
3.3.1.1 Historical Background 263.3.1.2 Archaeological Sites Recovered 26
3.3.2 Innu Campsites 273.3.2.1 Historical background 273.3.2.2 Archaeological Sites Recovered 28
3.4 Contemporary Settlement Patterns in the Project Area 293.4.1 Ethnographic Data 293.4.2 Archaeological Data 3 1
Interp retCli YC Sununaiy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page i'
4.0 DATA GAPS .334.1 Data Gaps Which Can be Rectified in the Context of the HROA ............................................ ...33
4.1.1 Transmission Line 1 ..................................................................................................... ...334.1.2 Gull Island Area Project Features ................................................................................ ...364.1.3 Gaps in Project Area Map Coverage ........................................................................... ...36 -
4.2 Data Gaps which are Persistent but Explicable ........................................................................ ...364.2.1 Scarcity of Late Precontact Sites in the Site Inventory ................................................ ...364.2.2 Scarcity of Early Historic Jnriu Campsites in the Site Inventory ................................. ... 37
4.3 Data Gaps which May be Rectified following HROA ............................................................. ...374.4 Data Gaps Which Cannot or Need Not be Rectified in the Context of the HROA .................. ...37
4.4.1 Definition of the Study Area to Exclude Adjacent Areas in Québec .......................... ... 374.4.2 Absence of Québec Innu Land Use Data ...................................................................... .. 384.4.3 Small Sample Size of Elder Informant Interviews ....................................................... ..384.4.4 Unevenness of Land Use Data in Study Area ................................................................. 394.4.5 Unevenness of Archaeological Data in Study Area ........................................................ 394.4.6 Lacunae in HBC Journal Records ................................................................................... 39 ..
4.4.7 Incomplete Testing of Zone Types in Gull Island Reservoir ........................................ ..404.4.8 Remaining Uncertainties in Archaeological Potential of Zone Types .......................... ..40
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... ..41
...............................................................................................................
..............................................................................
.........................................................
.....................................
............
................................................................................
................................................
..................................................
.................................
........................................................................
......................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
......................................................
.................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
.................................................
.....................
5.1 Further Data Collection 415.1.1 Rectification of Mapping Data Gaps 415.1.2 Further Field Assessment of Transmission Line I 415.1.3 Further Field Assessment of Gull Island Area Project Features 415.1.4 Modelling of Potential Erosional Impacts Downstream from Gull Island Dam 41
5.2 Recommended MonitoringlCRM Measures 415.2.1 Development of a Cultural Resource Management Plan 415.2.2 Ongoing Monitoring Downstream of Gull Island Darn 425.2.3 Monitoring of Construction of Gull Island Area Project Features 42
5.3 Recommended Mitigation/Excavation Measures 425.3.1 Gull Island Reservoir 425.3.2 Transmission Line 1 435.3.3 Churchill River Downstream from Gull Island Dam 43
6.0 REFERENCES 44
6.1 Personal Communications 446.2 Literature Cited 44
LIST OF TABLES
/Table 1.1 Culture History and Time PeriodsTable 2.1 Summary of Testing Effort and Results, 1998-2000
jTable 4.1 Summary of Data Gaps and Remedial Action, 1998-2000 HROA
Interpretative Sununaiy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page
Page No.2
1434
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.Figure 1.1 1998 Historic Resources Study Area and Project Area .................................................... 5
Figure 1.2 1999 Historic Resources Project Area .............................................................................. 7
Figure 1.3 Historic Resources Potential Mapping Regional Study Area and Project Area ............. 10Figure 1.4 Historic Resources 2000 Field Program Project Area .................................................... 11
VOLUME 2
Appendix I List and Location of Repos and Document\JAppendix 2 Locational Information
Appendix 3 Churchill River Power Project Database, Historic Resources 1998-2000
Appendix 4 Site Record Forms and Site Summary Table
Appendix 5 Artifact and Specimen Record Forms and Catalogues
Appendix 6 Field Notes (Team Leaders)
Appendix 7 Photo Catalogues
I.Inteiprelalive Suinmay and Recommendations • October 24, 200/ Page vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Churchill River is the largest river in Labrador, and its hydroelectric potential has been recognizedfor decades. On the Upper Churchill, the Churchill Falls hydro development was undertaken between1966 and 1974, resulting in the construction of the largest hydroelectric plant in Canada at Churchill
Falls, and the creation of the Smaliwood Reservoir. Further development of the Lower Churchill,
including generating stations at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, and a transmission line to the Island of
Newfoundland, was proposed and assessed in the 1970s but was not pursued to completion at that time.
Following discussions between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government ofQuébec in 1997, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Quebec were asked to renewnegotiations on further hydro development on the Churchill River, to be termed the "Churchill RiverPower Project" (CRPP). Environmental and feasibility studies commenced in the summer of 1998.
The Labrador Hydro Project (LHP) is proposing to develop up to 2,000 megawatts (MW) of additional
power from the Churchill River system. Proposed project components (current to November 2000) now
include:
• development of a 2,000 MW generating facility at Gull Island, with various infrastructure anddevelopment features in the Gull Island area, and reservoir extending along the Churchill River tothe Churchill Falls tailrace; and
o two 735 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, one from Gull Island to Churchill Falls and a second from
Gull Island to the Montagrtais station in Québec.
1.1 Historic Resources Overview Assessment of the Churchill River Power Project
The 1998 Historic Resources Overview Assessment (HROA) of the CRPP included extensivebackground research on historic resources in Labrador and the 1999 HROA continued this work, furtherinvestigating data and apparent data gaps arising from the 1998 results. The 2000 potential mapping
project developed a systematic characterization of survey effort and archaeological potential in order to
plan the work required to complete the HROA. The results are reported in detail in the 1998 and 1999
assessment reports and 2000 mapping project and field program reports (IEDE/JWEL 2000;
SWEL/INEN 2001a; JWEL/[NEN 2001b; JWEL/1NEN 2001c), and are only briefly summarized here.
Previous archaeological fieldwork in Labrador-Ungava and the Québec Côte-Nord has generallyfocused on the coast, where work has established that archaeological sites are rich and abundant, and theculture-historical sequence long and complex, extending over approximately 8,000 years (Table 1.1).
isi!erpi-eiatie Sumnwi-y and Reconunenda lions • Ociober 24, 200/ Page 1
Table 1.1. Culture History and Time Periods
Period Complex, Phase or Culture Date BPMaritime Archaic • Hound Pond 75 00-7200
• Sandy Cove 5200-4500
• Black Island Ca. 4200
___________________________________ • Rattlers Bight 4000-3800
Early Palaco-Eskimo • Predorset 4000-2800
Groswater 2800-2100
Intermediate Indian • Saunders 3500-2700
• Brinex 32003000• Charles 3000-2700• Road 2700-2300?
• North West River 2600-2000
_________________________________ • David Michelin 2300-1800?Late Palaeo-Eskimo • Early Dorset 2500-2400
a Middle Dorset 1800-1300
• Late Dorset 1000-650
Late Precontact or Recent Indian • Daniels Rattle 2000-1000
_________________________________ • Point Revenge 1000-350Neo-Eskimo • Thule 750-500Contact • 1mm, Inuit and Settler 500-30 0Early Historic 3 00-100Late Historic _____________________________________ 100-40Contemporary • Innu, Inuit and Settler 40 to presentNote: BP - years before present
Source: Derived from IEDE/JWEL 2000: 35
The sequence begins with an initial Palaeo-Indianlearly Maritime Archaic occupation in the Strait ofBelle Isle (McGhee and Tuck 1975). The early Maritime Archaic occupation spread north along the
coast to central, and then northern Labrador by 7,500 Before Present (BP) (Fitzhugh 1972; 1978a).
After 4,000 BP, coastal Labrador was also colonized by Arctic-adapted peoples from the north (Cox1978). Thereafter, Labrador precontact history is characterized by Intermediate Indian (Nagle 1978) and
Recent Indian (Fitzhugh 1978b) occupations interdigitating with Palaeo-Eskirno occupations (Pre-
Dorset, Groswater, Dorset), culminating with the arrival of the Thule, ancestors of the modern Labrador
Inuit, approximately 700 BP (Kaplan 1983; Fitzhugh 1994).
After approximately 500 BP, Labrador also became a focus for European activities, including whaling -initially by Basque whalers in the 16th century (Tuck and Grenier 1989), tishing sealing, and fur-trading (e.g., McAleese 1991; Kennedy 1995).
While the coast has seen detailed investigation, relatively little work has been undertaken in the interior
until recently. Early work in Hamilton Inlet (Fitzhugh 1972) established that the complex coastal
Interp ret alive Suinmaiy and Reconimendalions Ociober 24, 200/ Page 2
sequence contrasted with a continual series of Indian occupations at North West River. Subsequent
work in Labrador has generally been limited to rapid surveys along major river systems (e.g., McAleese
1992; 1993) or small field projects on interior lakes (e.g., McCaffrey et al. 1989; Loring, pers. comm.;McCaffrey 1989; Schwarz 1997; 1998) but has nevertheless led to the discovery of a number of interior
sites, mostly pertaining to the 1ntemediate Indian and Recent Indian periods. Palaeo-Eskimo sites in the
interior are scarce at best. Intensive fieldwork associated with the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill assessment in1996 (JWEL/MIIBC/TCC 1997) established that a combination of air photo analysis, intensive test
pitting and helicopter support can greatly improve the recovery of precontact sites in low-visibility
interior settings.
It is important to note that while interior surveys in Labrador have been limited until relatively recently,
this has not been the case in adjacent interior Québec, where extensive surveys have been undertaken in
several areas since the early 1970s (e.g., Samson 1978; Denton 1989).
The basic culture-historical framework for central Labrador was developed through work at the complexof Intermediate Indian and Recent Indian sites at North West River, at the head of Lake Melville, north
of the mouth of the Churchill River (Fitzhugh 1972). No Maritime Archaic sites had yet been
discovered in this area, perhaps because late and rapid post-glacial rebound in this area means that early
sites would be situated at high elevations, inaccessible without helicopter support. One Maritime
Archaic site, the first discovered in upper Lake Melville, was recorded in the Mud Lake area near the
mouth of the Churchill itself; see IEDE/JWEL 2000. At the same time, a very cursory assessment of theUpper Churchill project in the late 1960s (Macleod 1967; 1968) led to the identification of severalprecontact sites (including Late Precontact components; McCaffrey, pers. comm.), as well as historic-period sites in and around what is now the Smallwood Reservoir. Unfortunately, this survey was limited
in time and scope, and it is likely that many unidentified archaeological sites were inundated by
subsequent flooding. Even the sites that were identified were not investigated closely. Previous
archaeological assessment of the proposed Lower Churchill hydro development in the 1970s led to the
recording of several trappers tilts, and a brief excavation was undertaken at the Intermediate Indian site
at Muskrat Falls (Tuck 1981; Fitzhugh 1977).
Nevertheless, the results of interior investigations conducted elsewhere in Labrador in the I 990s, prior tothe present CRPP assessment, did indicate that the CRPP project area would include significant historic
resources which may be affected by development, and that with appropriate methodologies, these sites
could be identified and mitigative measures taken. The CRPP overview assessment commenced in 1998with the following goals:
Inerpreiative Summary and Recominenda jions • October 24, 2001 Page 3
• to sample the region to establish the nature and range of historic resources potentially present withinthe project area;
• to locate major sites which may be identified in archival sources or land use data; and
o to identify the nature and scope of mitigation measures which may be required at these sites.
While the primary objectives of the Overview Assessment were to sample and develop an
archaeological overview of the project area, it was also recognized that sampling activities wouldcontribute directly to the archaeological surveys of affected zones within the project area, such as wouldbe required in subsequent Historic Resources Impact Assessments (HRIA).
1.2 Phase I (1998) Work Completed
In 1998, IEDE Enterprise, Inc. (IEDE) and Jacques Whitford Environment (SWELI, in partnership, were
contracted to commence work on the HROA of the CRPP (IEDE/JWEL 2000). The objective was toobtain an initial overview of what is an archaeologically poorly-known area. The strategy involved two
stages: background research in which known or potential historic resources were identified; and targetedtesting, in which the survey focused on these preselected locations and in many instances involvedintensive subsurface testing programs.
Background research was broad in scope and encompassed a defined "Study Area", which included all
of Labrador south of the Fraser River and extended to include portions of adjacent Québec. Background
research involved an extensive review of ethnographic, historical, and archaeological sources. This workwas undertaken to identify archaeological site locations within the narrower Project Area (Figure 1.1), toassist in identifying potential site locations within the Project Area, and to compile information whichmight aid in interpreting any archaeological remains encountered. As a result of time constraints,background research was undertaken by one team concurrently with the fieldwork.
Field assessment involved two to four field teams and the scope included all development areas
proposed in 1998, together constituting the narrower Project Area, for the purposes of the assessment.
This Stage I HROA of the CRPP in 1998 (IEDE/JWEL 2000) led to the recording of contemporary,historic and precontact sites from across the broader project area, from the Strait of Belle Isle in the eastto Atikonak Lake in the west. In the Churchill Valley itself, some 75 sites were recorded, including 12precontact sites and two of the three documented Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) outposts. Twenty-seven of these sites, including one precontact site and one HBC post, were encountered within the GullIsland Reservoir area, the focus of the work proposed for 1999.
Inierp:eiaiive Summary and Recommendations • October 24. 2001 Page 4
- N-
I '
Churchill FalIs-7
l7f See
? ,tikanaL 'ne, -'oose BayLaAe Muskrat Falls
c1-d : -''i: GulHslarid -\ -\
__f-_ tt , ,.-.
" I .t LABRADOR
Ungava
Bay-
- :3
•'%
I-
.1 -
QUEBEC I---_A
Lab, ado,Sea
; LABRADOR
-'- - C
c\%
._
,I.. %c
- -
)I %_.-1 -.
- , -, -- -.----,- ---
-
t
-2i-
Study Area
Project Area;, ,:
S
'_Montagnais , Point Amour
/
L!'LAnseauClair
0 125 250
_____________
- -ThKilometres f GuIJf
•-J 7' Si, Li'r,rc //
A
FIGURE IiJacques WhitfordEnvironment LJmited
' 1998 HISTORIC RESOURCESEnvirnnmcntal ScientistsConsuItin Etiginecis STUDY AREA AND PROJECT AREA
The 1998 study noted several remaining data gaps. The proposed 1999 investigations were aimed at
addressing three of these in particular. The first was the fact that the HBC facility at Winokapau Post
was identified, but only on the final day of fieldwork in 1998, and considerable work was still required
to define the nature, extent and preservation of deposits. The second was the fact that Late Precontact
and historic Innu sites were not represented in the sample of sites recovered, indicating a need for further -overview assessment aimed at intensively surveying recent and contemporary riverbanks using intensive
subsurface sampling strategies, and at refining the precontact sequence for the area. The third was that a Jlarge sample of sites documented in the Innu Nation land use data did not become available in usable
form until later in the 1998 season. Therefore, it still remained to properly ground-truth these data and
to test their possible utility for identifying the Late Precontact and early historic Innu occupations of thevalley.
1.3 Phase 11(1999) Work Completed
Owing in part to the late start of the field season, the 1999 field assessment of the CRPP focused on thecontinued Overview Assessment (Phase II) of the proposed Gull Island Reservoir area (JWEL/INEN
2001a). The objectives in 1999 were to continue the Overview Assessment in the Gull Island Reservoir
area (Figure 1.2), so as to fill notable data gaps identified in 1998. More specifically, the goals were:
• to clarify the nature of the late-precontact and historic Innu occupations of the area throughcontinued general survey, and also through a focus on locations of documented Innu land use;
• to collect basic data on the precontact sequence in the region; and
• to develop an overview of the scope of work required for future mitigation efforts.
The 1999 historic resources study program consisted of five components: archival research; excavations
at Gache River I; testing and mapping at Winokapau Post; general archaeological survey along the
Churchill River; and archaeological investigation of locations of documented Innu land use.
Archival research included a review of the Journals of the HBC North West River Post for the years1836 to 1878. Information was collected on the nature and years of operation of the three outpostsattached to North West River Post, namely Winokapau, Sandy Banks, and Gull Island. A list of earlyhistoric settlers names for the historic period was also compiled to identify early family names in theregion, to provide a rough gauge of population growth in the region, as well as to potentially link familynames with tilt locations identified during the 199899 archaeological fieldwork and informant
interviews. In addition, notes were taken on the Innu who visited North West River Post and the nature
of their business. The North West River Post journals contained information on seasonal operations,
including when crews and supplies were sent to the outposts each year. This work established that the
outposts of Gull Island and Sandy Banks were in operation for many more years than previously
thought, which further suggests that there should be substantial archaeological evidence at these
locations.
InterpreLatit'e Summazy and Rco,nmendallons • October 24, 2001 Page 6
(p-.
.c1
(,•__ -1
S%
C-'-
-
p
II
LabradorSea
Project Area
WE
• :Churchill FaHs -•
;i .
Lake Muskrat Falls:-
.' 4'- L- - Gull Csland
'- :;-----•
•- -
C' -t?i
'
>1.__.
-
Proposedt'
s--'Gull Island
- ---_
Reservoir
• :..- /•
N/'
4 ;QUEBEC c's
1.
0 125 250 -- :;
--__.t i •:/
Kilometres Gl
- --
fJ- si Jizerenec' /
-•-•.•
/I
NorthA i/antic
' -------- FIGURE 1.2lacques WhtfordEnvironment Limited 1999 HISTORIC RESOURCESEnvironmental Scientists
"T AREAConsulting Engineers I I .I
The field program was undertaken by three teams: one focused on Winokapau Post; one charged withexcavating at Cache River 1, then completing a general archaeological survey; and one focused on theland use survey.
A total of 49 in2 were excavated at Cache River I (FgCn-01) between September 13 and September 29,1999. These excavations yielded a collection of finished artifacts and expedient tools, including scrapers
and biface fragments, most manufactured from "banded lava" and fine cherts, and dated typologically to
the Charles Complex, dated 3,000 to 2,800 DP at North West River. These were associated with anumber of indistinct and possibly disturbed features. The C'ache River 1 site thus appears to represent asmall campsite of the Intermediate Period in central Labrador's precoritact history.
Test excavations and mapping at Winokapau Post (FhCt-0 1) resulted in the identification of severalfeatures, including the remains of a relatively large building that was almost certainly a dwelling, abake-oven, a possible root cellar and an unidentified structure. The sample of cultural materialscollected at the site indicates a mid to late nineteenth century occupation, consistent with the archivalresearch results.
The general archaeological survey was aimed at investigating low elevation shorelines with potential toyield Late Precontact or historic sites, both of which were underrepresented in the sample of sitesrecovered in 1998. No new archaeological sites were recorded during the course of this work.However, all of the testing zones investigated were locations which would have to be investigated
during future impact assessment, so the work did contribute to some degree to the future completion of aHRIA.
The land use survey included the investigation of Innu land use locations recorded during previousetimographic mapping research (Innu Nation 1999). Over 50 sites were found at or in the vicinity ofthese locations during the 1999 archaeological survey and testing program (JWEL/INEN 2001a: 60).
These included precontact and historic components. In addition, limited ethnographic interviews and sitevisits with Innu senior infonnants revealed new sites and yielded substantial information on siteattributes and locations, travel routes and transportation, natural resources and subsistence patterns.
1.4 Phase 111(2000 Mapping) Work Completed
The objectives of the 2000 mapping project were, broadly, to develop regional context niaps and Project
Area maps of archaeological potential in order to systematically characterize the HROA survey effort to
date, as well as the work required to complete the Stage 1 HROA (JWEL/INEN 2001b).
Interprelative Swnnmiy and Recommendations d October 24, 2001 Page 8
The mapping program consisted of two components:
o regional context mapping of west-central Labrador and adjacent regions of Québec. placing the
Project Area within a broader cultural and archaeological context (Figure 1.3), and
o detailed project area potential mapping, which assessed the sample quality of the HROA, and
enabled further planning and scoping of the work required to complete the HROA.
The regional context mapping served to illustrate on a broad scale the historic resources potential, basedon known site distributions and Innu land use data (e.g., camp locations and harvesting areas).
The project area potential mapping generated maps and a preliminary database which permitted the
identification of zone types previously underrepresented in the first two phases of the HROA, and also
indicated zone types of apparently high archaeological potential. These results provided the basis for
developing a workplan for the 2000 field program.
Following the completion of fieldwork, the 2000 field results were then incorporated into thepreliminary database to generate final, updated Project Area archaeological potential maps and regional
context maps.
1.5 Phase JV (2000 FielcIworl) Work Completed
The objectives of the 2000 field program were to implement the workplan developed on the basis of the2000 project area potential mapping. The specific objectives were to investigate zone types which were
significantly underrepresented in previous investigations, and to investigate as many as possible of thezone types with demonstrably high potential, which would have to be assessed in order to complete theStage I HROA.
The field program followed the testing methods employed in the first three phases of the HROA.
Fieldwork involved three teams, investigating five distinct Project components (Figure 1.4).
1. Fieldwork in Gull Island Reservoir was undertaken by all three teams, and included testing programsat most of the remaining untested Type 01 (modern stable, contemporary strategic shoreline) zones,defined in the preliminary stage of the Mapping Project as the single zone type with the highestpotential. In addition, to support the Mapping Project by evening-out the sample of underrepresentedzone types, the teams investigated selected Type 06 (preserved former, ancient generic shoreline)and Type 09 (interfiuvial upland) zones.
Interpretative Suininay and Recoimnendauons • October 24. 200! Page 9
Ungava
-' Bay --- \,..;.. .' -. (-
- --SJ-•••' (I
)•1
QUEBEC-
jI,..REGIONAL . •i .i
STUDY AREA
_
) LABRADOR
Proposed\ :;
• .j Gull Island-'% \- -.. t ( •' .
'.4 Reservoir
/ IChurchrll
1 GullJ
/
LabradorSea
(YS
Project Area
WE
':7*
'-'. -'
Goose Bay
Muskrat Falls
•PROJECT Localized
AREA Project. ti__..____Features,
o c- !Montagnais .
Côte-Nord
QBCBlanc Sablon i a:;-
-4S
UAnseatj Clair--
c;irIJofS& Laiuca /
/' ; / ;:2--ç
RJJ --
:-T125 250
-
:• Kilometres
Jacques Whitford
U f 14 Environment LimitedEnvironmental ScientistsConsulting Engineers
FIGURE 1.3
HISTORIC RESOURCES POTENTIAL MAPPINGREGIONAL STUDY AREA AND PROJECT AREA
-
c
-UngavaBay -
- -•__\_. -_1 -,._
- 1.l
-S -, _s- - _.I
-5)
c• •..•.
•-, .-:J
QUEBEC
Project Area
WE
P
' \ Lab, ado,- Sea
__S_
LABRADOR
-' Proposed iGull Island --
• ;,_l\ Reservoir
-
ittrknaA
Chu1trRyiver
:PROJECT Localized
AREA Project Features
LABRADORQEBEC
MontagnaisPoint Amour
-'o- S7
au CFar0 125 250i l;
Kilometres- .
StjGiIfof /'
I
Jacques Whitford
- J Environment LimitedEnvironmenta' ScientistsConsulting Engineers
FIGURE 1.4
HISTORIC RESOURCES 2000 FIELD PROGRAMPROJECT AREA
2. Fieldwork downstream of the proposed dam on the Churchill River, between Gull Island andMuskrat Falls, was brief and focused on investigating selected Type 01 zones to assist in futurecultural resource management along this section of the River.
3. Fieldwork further downstream, in the Churchill Estuary, was limited and focused on investigating
selected Type 01 zones in the previously neglected northern and eastern limits of the estuary, to
assist in future cultural resource management along this section of the River.
4. Fieldwork along the broad Study Area for Transmission Line 1 supported the Mapping Project witha program of field validation, investigation of Type 00 (undetennined shoreline) zones, andsampling of Type 09 zones.
5. Finally, field surveys including subsurface testing programs, was undertaken at proposed Project
Features in the Gull Island area to establish whether cultural resources were present in the locationsto be impacted.
As a result of this field program, 14,443 test pits were excavated at 504 testing locations in 276 mappedzones. This program supported the Mapping Project by evening-out the sampling effort and assisting inthe rating of archaeological potential within the Project Area. It supported completion of the HROA bybringing the sample of tested Type 01 zones to over 86%. The field program also led to the recovery of99 archaeological sites within the Project Area.
Inici-pi-etative Suininwy and Recoininendat ions Ociober 24, 200/ Page 12
2.0 OVERVIEW OF TESTING EFFORT AND RESULTS
2.1 Testing Effort
The basic testing strategy throughout the HROA has been to preselect testing locations, based on air
photo analysis and land use data, and to target those locations for intensive subsurface testing. General
pedestrian survey has played a relatively small role in the HROA.
Though often characterized in the literature as a survey method, general pedestrian survey in forested
environments can only lead to the recovery of surface-visible remains and will only occasionally locate
true archaeological sites. It is more appropriate to consider general pedestrian survey as a form ofground reconnaissance aimed at identifying locations suitable for subsurface testing. General pedestriansurvey has been employed in the CRPP HROA as a reconnaissance method, particularly in upland areas
where high resolution air photos are not available, but in general, its role has been de-emphasized in the
CRPP HRUA in favour of using air photos and land use data for testing location selection.
As a result, the bulk of the fieldwork on the ground has been focussed on subsurface testing. The vast
majority of testing locations represent subsuiface testing locations, and only a minority have been
investigated by visual inspection alone. In addition, it is important to note that survey coverage acrossthe Project Area consists essentially of localized and discrete testing locations. While survey teams haveincidentally walked a great deal of the Churchill River in the course of this work, no attempt has beenmade to simply "walk" the Project Area, nor has a walking survey alone been deemed an adequate or
even useful survey method.
2.1.1 Testing Effort By Project Component
In summarizing testing effort within the CRPP HROA, it is important to note that the definition of theProject Area has been subject to periodic amendments. In 1998 the Project Area included, or came toinclude, the Churchill River (with proposed hydra developments at both Gull Island and Muskrat Falls),the proposed Churchill Falls II development, three Transmission Line routes, and portions of the
proposed Atikonak Lake diversion.
Subsequently, the core Gull Island portion of the Project has remained unchanged, but the Muskrat Falls
component has been dropped. The Churchill River downstream of Gull Island remains part of theProject Area, but only as shoreline potentially subject to erosion from modified flood regimedownstream of the development, not as a reservoir area. Transmission Line I (Gull Island to ChurchillFalls) is retained, but only as a broad Study Area within which the final route has not yet been defined.Development of Churchill Falls II, the Atikonak Lake diversion, and Transmission Line H (Gull Islandto L'Anse au Clair) have been removed from the proposal. Transmission Line HI (Gull Island to
Montagnais) was not included in the Study Area for this Study.
InferpreIafn'e Summaty and Recommendations October 24, 200/ Page /3
Consequently, survey effort among Project components ranges from exploratory to intensive, andincludes investigation of areas which may never be integrated into the development as finally proposed.
Overall, the HROA from 1998 to 2000 has led to the investigation of over 984 locations (see Volume 2,Figure 2.3a and 2.4a). More than 32,456 test pits have been excavated at over 809 of these. Ifcomponents which are no longer included in the Project Area are discounted, and the focus is on the
mapped Churchill River and Transmission Line I components, testing effort stands at 820 locations, with23,601 test pits excavated at 674 of these. Testing effort per component is summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Summary of Testing Effort and Results, 1998-2000
Component TL GR MG ES PF Outside All
NumberofZories 445 1,275 447 136 13 2,316Number of Zones with Testing.
Locations79 306 55 14 13 467
Testing locations 173 494 87 35 31 164 984Testpits 3,017 16,234 2,947 506 897 8,855 32,456Testing locations (Test pit>0) 134 424 70 17 29 135 809Test pits/Testing Locations (Testpit>0)
22.52 38.29 4110 29.77 30.93 65.59 40.12
Number of Testing Locations withSites
11 106 20 20 4 161
Number of Sites 50 122 26 21 4 37 260TL: Transmission Line; GR: Gull Island Reservoir; MG: Gull Island to Muskrat Falls; ES: Churchill Estuary PF: ProjectFeatures; Outside: Outside the potential mapping area.
Testing effort has been most intensive in the Gull Reservoir component, which has been a focus of workfor three seasons. Geographically within this component, testing effort was somewhat higher east of
Winokapau Lake than west of Winokapau Lake. Otherwise, testing locations are well-distributed alongthe proposed reservoir area, with the exception of the steep-sided shores of Lake Winokapau, wheresuitable testing locations are scarce.
Survey effort is less intensive between Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, which was a focus of work only in1998. Within this component, testing effort has been intensive within certain localized areas: mostnotably Pena's River and the eastern end of Gull Lake, Edward's Brook, Upper Brook, Lower Brook,and Muskrat Falls itself.
Survey effort was similarly less intensive in the Churchill Estuary, where virtually all of the testing wasdone in 1998. Geographically, coverage is fairly evenly-distributed between Muskrat Falls and the Mud
Lake area. To the north and east, from Goose River to Sandy Point, testing effort has been limited.
Interpretaiii'e Summaiy ant/ Recammwic/atiojis Octo/er 24, 2001 Page 14
The level of testing effort iii proposed project features in the Gull Island area is mixed. Most features,
particularly those located near the Churchill River, have been intensively investigated over the course ofthree years. Others have been investigated less intensively, and will require more work when their
locations have been more precisely determined.
Transmission Line I has been sampled extensively rather than intensively, as the actual transmission lineroute has not yet been determined, and fieldwork was primarily intended to sample the region so as to
n assist in route selection. A survey was undertaken in 1998 and again in 2000, and coverage is generally
well-distributed along the proposed corndor, with a particular focus on the Wilson Lake-Metchin River
area.
Transmission Line II was investigated only in 1998, with a survey program that was similarly extensivebut not intensive. Along the greater part of the route, testing locations are evenly but widely distributed.
Testing effort was particularly concentrated along the Strait of Belle Isle coastal strip between L'Anseau Clair and Point Amour. Transmission Line II is no longer a part of the proposed development.
Survey effort along Transmission Line III was exploratory only, undertaken in 1998 in the context ofmonitoring geotechnical testing along the route. Transmission Line III is no longer a part of theproposed development.
Testing effort in the vicinity of the proposed Atikonak Diversion was similarly exploratory. Work wasundertaken in 1998 only, in the context of assessing geotechnical impacts. The Atikonak Diversion is nolonger part of the proposed development.
Assessment at Churchill Falls II was undertaken only in 1998 and was directed at precise, localizedareas. Churchill Falls II is no longer a part of the proposed development.
2.1.2 Testing Effort By Zone Type
The 1998 field program in part emphasized investigation of preserved riverine and estuarine terraces.The 1999 field program placed more emphasis on present riverbank locations. In 2000, the fieldprogram was preceded by a mapping project which mapped a series of 12 zone types across the Project
Area. At this point, it was possible to formally define and quantify the relationship between testing effort
to date, and the frequency and distribution of landform types across the Project Area landscape. The
2000 field program was aimed in part at rectifying shortcomings in the sampling to date, and ensuringthat testing locations provided a representative sample of the landscape.
It should be noted that approximately one-third of the testing locations investigated in 1998 and 1999 lieoutside the Project Area, as defined and mapped in the 2000 Mapping Project. It is the remaining two-
thirds which are used to characterize the representativeness of the HROA sample to date.
interpretative Swnmaiy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page /5
On completion of the 2000 field program, all riverfront zones types (Types 00 to 04) had been sampled
to a degree which equalled or exceeded their frequency in the landscape, except for Type 04 zone, a
relatively rare zone type which remained somewhat underrepresented. All former riverfront zone types
(Types 05 (preserved former, ancient strategic shoreline) and Type 06 zones) had been extensively
sampled. Type 07 (coastallalluvial plain) zone was not present within the mapped area and was therefore
not sampled at all. Type 08 (terrace interior) zone remained somewhat underrepresented. Type 09 zonewas well represented. Finally, Type 10 (wetlands) and 11 (steep slope) zones were strongly Junderrepresented in the sample, though this was deliberate as neither zone type is amenable tosubsurface testing programs.
2.1.3 Testing Effort By Elevation
One ongoing concern of the field program has been to ensure that testing effort lead to the recovery ofarchaeological sites of all ages and periods represented in the Project Area. In the riverine components,from Gull Island Reservoir to the Churchill Estuary (but less so in upland components such as theTransmission Lines), this is achieved by ensuring that survey coverage encompasses landforms of allages. While the relationship between site elevation and age is more complex in the riverine portions ofthe Project Area than in the estuarine portions, landform age may broadly be characterized by landforrnelevation. Therefore, one objective was to ensure that subsurface testing was undertaken at a wide butappropriate range of elevations.
In the early stages of the HROA in 1998, one objective was to establish the range of elevations withpotential to yield sites and, in particular, to investigate higher elevations to determine the upper limits.Testing effort was focused to some extent on well-preserved ancient laridforms at relatively highelevations. The 1998 field program did lead to the discovery of numerous contemporary sites, generallyat low elevations. Precontact sites included one of late Maritime Archaic date but otherwise, theprecontact inventory appeared to be dominated by Intermediate material. Most surprisingly, LatePrecontact sites were not recovered, and early historic material was sparse. Subsequently, testing effort
in 1999 focused on increasing the sample of low-elevation testing locations in an attempt to recover
more evidence of Late Precontact and early historic occupation. In 2000, elevation did not figure in thesampling strategy directly, but the overall strategy of investigating Type 01 zones in particular entailed adeja do emphasis on low-elevation zones, at least along the Churchill River valley.
The end result upon completion of the 2000 field program is that in the Churchill River valleycomponents, the frequency of testing locations declines with elevation, such that 75% of testinglocations lay between 0 to 14 rn above river level. (an), 23% between 15 and 39 m arl, and 2% above40 m arl. Since 95% of recorded sites lie below 19 ni arl and 100% lie below 39 m arl, the distribution
Type 02: modem stab'e, contemporary generic shoreline.
Type 03: modern eroding, contemporary strategic shoreline.
Type 04: modem eroding, contemporary generic shoreline.
Interpretatwe Sumniwy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 °age /6
of testing locations is considered to represent an adequate sample of elevation ranges with potential to
yield archaeological sites.
2.2 Results
Including all components, the CRIPP HROA has inventoried 260 sites. Approximately 77% of these (202
sites) yielded contemporary components, and 21.2% (55 sites) yielded evidence for precontact or
historic occupation while the period of occupation remains undetermined at three sites (1.2%). Sites
located within the Project Area number 242, and 70% of these sites lie along the Churchill valley itself.
Of the sites found within the Churchill River components, nearly 60% lie within a single zone type,
Type 01 (on the riverbanks, near confluences, at constrictions in the rivercourse, on points of land or
along rapids and falls).
Sites recovered in the Project Area include diverse types. Ninety five (39%) are camp or habitation siteswith 10 tilt remains, and two former HBC posts. However, the site inventoly also includes 34 trappingsites and four sites pertaining to contemporary or historic industrial activities within the Project Area.
As noted, the vast majority of sites pertain to contemporary land use in the Project Area. These sites
include tilts, campsites and industrial sites. The campsites include Imiu and Settler occupations. With
the most recent sites it can be difficult to assign cultural affiliation with confidence. Precontact sitesnumber 35. Ten of these are located on the Strait of Belle Isle, which no longer lies within the ProjectArea. The remaining 25 lie along the Churchill River. One of these is dated on typological grounds tothe Maritime Archaic period, and one to the Late Precontact period. The remainder appear to date to the
Intermediate period. The sample appears small but the ratio of precontact to contemporary sites is notunusual for largescale surveys in Labrador-Ungava (e.g., JWELIMIBC/TCC 1997: 34) and the sample
quality suggests this sample is representative. Historic sites number 22 (24 when including multi-
component sites with precontact and historic components) and include two HBC posts. The remaining
sites include 11 sites interpreted as Innu campsites or occupation, six sites with evidence of Settler
occupation, and five Sites with other or undetennined cultural affiliation. There are much fewer historicInnu camps in the inventory than has been found from archaeological surveys elsewhere in Labrador-Ungava. Interpretation of these survey results is discussed more fully in Section 3.0.
Inlerpretathie Summary and Reconiniendations • October 24, 200/ Page 17
3.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
3.1 Summary of Results
The vast majority of the sites recorded during the CRPP HROA lie along the Churchill River. To someextent, this may reflect the relative density of past settlement in the riverine, as opposed to the upland,
portions of the Project Area. However, it is also the case that archaeological investigation along theChurchill River has been more intensive than in any upland component. In particular, investigation ofthe transmission line component north of the Churchill River is still at an early stage, and it would be
unwise to draw firm regional comparisons at this stage.
Taking the Churchill River by itself, however, with completion of the 2000 field program, the level ofsampling effort and the size of the inventory of recorded sites is now sufficiently large to pennit thepreliminary identification and interpretation of patterns in the historic resources. Except where noted,the following interpretative statements are concerned primarily with patterns of settlement along theChurchill River itself.
In the discussions which follow, the Precontact period is defined as the period of human occupation
beginning with the initial human colonization of the region and extending to the time of European
contact. In this context, "Contact" is itself a broad period rather than an event, spanning the centuriesbetween ca. AD 1500 and AD 1700. The Early Historic period is defined as the period from Ca. AD1700 to 1900, encompassing the rise and peak of Innu participation in the fur trade in this region. TheLate Historic period is defined as the first half of the twentieth century, ending with increasinglypermanent Innu settlement in Sheshatshiu. The Contemporary period refers to the second half of the
twentieth century; sites of this period are not technically classified as "archaeological" sites.
3.2 Precontact Settlement Patterns in the Project Area
Prior to the commencement of the HROA in 1998, only one precontact site was known from theChurchill River valley, this being the Intermediate site discovered at Muskrat Falls in the 1970s (Tuck
1981). Now, while no precontact sites have yet been recovered during transmission line work in theuplands flanking the river, 25 sites are known fTonl the Churchill River and estuary (plus a possible
twenty-sixth precontact site at Sandy Point north of Goose Bay). A map showing precontact site
distribution is presented in Volume 2 (Appendices) of this report.
3.2.1 Cultural Affiliation
Of these sites, one (Muatinek High Terrace 1, near the mouth of the Churchill River) has been dated
typologically to the Rattlers Bight Phase (4,000-3,800 BP) of the Maritime Archaic period and one (Gull
Lake 2 on Gull Lake) to the Point Revenge (1,000-350 BP) or Daniel Rattle complex (2,000-1,000 P)
Inteipretative Swn,nwy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 18
of the Late Precontact period. The remainder have been dated to the Intermediate period (3,500-1,800
BP) on the basis of the lithic raw materials encountered in testing.
No sites pertaining to the Dorset or other Palaeo-Eskimo occupations of Labrador have been identifiedalong the Churchill River. Since Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages are generally rich in diagnostics, even in
small survey collections, it is unlikely that any of the sites recorded to date contain Palaeo-Eskimo
components.
3.2.2 Site Distribution
Sites are clearly not evenly distributed along the length of the river: 21 sites have been recorded below
the mouth of Minipi River, and only four above. Sites are particularly clustered in two areas:
• the Happy Valley-Mud Lake area around the mouth of the Churchill River, where six sites have been
recovered, and
• the Gull Lake-Gull Rapids area between the mouth of Pinus River and Horseshoe Rapids, where 12sites have been recorded (eight below Gull Rapids and four above).
These two clusters account for nearly 75% of the precontact sites found. Elsewhere along the river, sites
are more widely spaced. Three sites lie between the mouth of the Churchill River and Gull Lake,
including two at Muskrat Falls. Four sites are located west of Minipi Rapids, including two west ofBeaver Brook, one at the mouth of Cache River, and one far upstream near Fig River, at the western end
of Lake Winokapau. It should also be noted that 18 of the 25 sites lie on the north side of the Churchill
River.
3.2.3 Site Features
Virtually all of the precontact sites recorded during the HROA were encountered through subsurface
testing programs. In several instances, test pits yielded some trace of hearth remains but for the most
part, testing intersected only the lithic debris scatter, and the presence of other features can only beinferred.
With some notable exceptions, these precontact sites appear small and low in density compared to
coastal sites in Labrador. This situation is broadly comparable to that encountered on interior waterwaysin the hinterland of the Québec Côte-Nord, where large sites and site complexes are rarely recorded
along waterways; there, such sites are interpreted as brief travel stops between the more important and
intensively occupied harvesting areas on the coast and the major interior lakes (J-Y. Pirital, in Armitage2001). While the same may be true on the Churchill River, it is argued below that larger sites and site
complexes do in fact exist in the Project Area, though they are less apparent because the site
"complexes" are more dispersed. This dispersal of components is to be expected along downcutting and
Interpretative Sumway and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 19
wandering rivercourses; constantly shifting river channels should discourage the formation of largeconcentrated site complexes, since the location of suitable campsite locations is constantly changing, i
and should reduce site density by destroying sites through lateral movement and erosion.
3.2.4 Site Elevations
With regard to elevation, precontact site elevations in the estuary are generally high and sites lie well
back from the present shoreline, as expected in a marine/estuarine setting such as this (see IWEL 2000).
Elevations in the Gull Island to Muskrat Falls component are quite variable, but it is noteworthy that all
but two of the sites lie along the present riverbank, and two lie at low elevations only a few metres
above river level. This resembles the situation just above Gull Rapids, and suggests that late Holocene
downcutting has not been as extreme on the lower portions of the Churchill River as it has further West.
Moving further upstream (west) within the proposed Gull Island Reservoir area, sites between GullIsland Rapids and Horseshoe Rapids were, in general, found at elevations relatively close to the present
river level, andlor along the present banks of the Churchill River. Sites located further upstream were, in
general, found at high elevations, sometimes on former terraces far removed from the present
riverbanks. Similarly, testing locations at low elevations in the former area often yielded soil
development profiles, indicating stable and ancient deposits, while low elevation testing locations to thewest generally revealed undifferentiated soils, indicating recent deposition. This would seem to suggestthat isostatic rebound and associated downcutting has been much more extreme in the western portions
of the Project Area, but has been rather limited in the Gull Island area. This has important implicationsfor field survey, interpretation, and archaeological potential within the Gull Island Reservoir area. At the
eastern end of this component, the river may have changed little over the past 3,000 years, and
precontact sites may be anticipated on present riverbanks in site locations similar to those that would be
selected today. Ta the west, however, precontact sites are more likely to be found on higher terraces nolonger associated with the present riverbanks.
3.2.5 Site Function and Seasonality
The function and seasonality of these sites were probably varied and cannot be firmly establishedwithout further excavation, but it may be hypothesized that the Churchill River has served at various
times as a travel route between western Lake Melville and a variety of other locations to the west and
southwest. Though the sites themselves are not spaced at regular intervals, the wide spacing, associationwith rapids and confluences, and generally small size of some sites is at least consistent with their use astravel stops. Though there are indications that fluvial downcutting may be more severe west of MinipiRapids, it is noteworthy that considerable survey effort was focused on preserved riverine terraces.Therefore, the overall decline in site frequency to the west may reflect not a sampling bias but rather, a
Interpretative Suminwy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 20
dendritic pattern of precontact travel routes which led east-west along the Churchill River but branched
off toward various destinations.
While the results offer support for the notion that the Churchill River served as a travel route in
antiquity, there are also indications that settlement along the river was not confined to travel stops. The
large site clusters at the mouth of the Churchill River and in the Gull Lake area include sites which are
individually large or which cluster into dispersed site complexes, and which are not associated with
portage routes or other obvious travel stops. Especially noteworthy are two sites within the Gull Lake
cluster: Kak, which yielded an extraordinary density of lithic remains, and Tshiashkunish 2, the largest
precontact site recorded in the valley, with lithic remains discontinuously distributed across some 750
m2 of lakefront. It is hypothesized that both the riveniiouth and Gull Lake area saw substantial and
prolonged seasonal settlement and resource harvesting. Gull Lake is identified in Innu Nation land use
data as a harvesting area for fish, small game, furbearers and migratory waterfowl (Armitage 1990) and
could be attractive for settlement in most seasons, particularly spring and fall. Site locations on the north
side of the lake, sheltered to the north and east, suggest cold-season occupation, perhaps early spring or
late fall. For the estuarine sites in the Happy Valley area, a spring-summer season of occupation cantentatively be inferred, as postulated for North West River and other precontact sites in western LakeMelville.
3.2.6 The Predominance of Intermediate Period Sites
These hypotheses apply most directly to settlement in the Intermediate period, which is represented by
virtually all of the precontact sites recovered in the Churchill Valley to date. This overwhelmingpredominance of Intermediate materials is perhaps the most obvious culture-historical pattern in the
precontact site inventory. Of the 25 sites, 23 pertain to various phases of the Intermediate period, one tothe preceding Maritime Archaic period, and one to the subsequent Late Precontact period. Thepredominance of Intennediate sites was initially thought to reflect sampling bias, but this is no longerconsidered likely. Considerable testing at elevations above those anticipated to yield Intermediate siteshas been largely negative, while testing at lower elevations has simply produced further evidence ofIntermediate occupation. Moreover, while riverine erosion has undoubtedly destroyed evidence of
precontact settlement, it is unlikely that any plausible post-depositional process could selectively remove
evidence for Late Precontact settlement while preserving evidence of Intermediate occupation. It ishypothesized that the most intensive settlement in the Churchill River valley occurred during theIntermediate period, and the Maritime Archaic and Late Precontact occupations were considerably lessintensive.
There is an alternative hypothesis. It must be recalled that these survey collections are dated on
typological grounds, and more specifically, on the lithic raw materials encountered: quartzites, banded
lava and Saunders Chert. All three materials are characteristic of Intermediate components at the typesite of North West River (Fitzhugh 1972), and the latter two are recorded oniy in sites of Intermediate
Interpretative Sununa:y and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 21
age. In contrast, sites of the Late Precontact period in Labrador, both coastal and interior, are normallydominated by Ramah Chert.
It is possible that some of the quartzite assemblages on the Churchill River actually date to the Late
Precontact period. Certainly quartzite is associated with Late Precontact sites in Mushuau-n4i (Samson1978) and in the Caniapiscau area (Denton 1989), though there is usually an admixture of Ramah Chertas well. If some or all of these quartzite assemblages date to the Late Precontact period, then Late
Precontact settlement on the Churchill River must obviously have been more intensive than it seems atpresent. Only excavation can resolve this question, but given the close affinity of the Churchill Riverprecontact sites with the Intermediate components at North West River, and the sharp contrast in rawmaterial use with the majority of Late Precontact sites in Labrador, the simplest and most plausible
hypothesis is that adopted here: that the precontact sites which appear typologically to date to theIntermediate period do indeed date to the Intermediate period.
3.2.7 Lithic Variation Between Sites of Hypothesized Intermediate Age
The lithic assemblages further suggest possible culture-historical patterning among the Intermediatesites themselves. Of the ii Intermediate sites between the mouth of the Churchill River and the westernend of Gull Lake, 10 yielded quartzite-dominated assemblages, suggesting affiliation with the BrinexComplex of the Tntermediate period; only one site near Happy Valley yielded a Saunders Chertassemblage and was assigned to the Saunders Complex. Between the western end of Gui! Lake and
Horseshoe Rapids, the proportions are reversed: of the seven Intermediate sites recorded here, five
yielded assemblages dominated by Saunders Chert and only two were primarily quartzite. Finally, of the
four sites discovered above Minipi Rapids, three yielded primarily "banded lava" assemblages
diagnostic of the Charles Complex, and one site, far to the west at Fig River, produced a single tiny flake
which appears to be Saunders Chert.
Aside from the general emphasis on local quartzites in some components, these assemblages have little
affiliation with lithic material patterns described for the Québec Côte-Nord (e.g., Chevrier 1977; Pintal1998) or Caniapiscau area (Denton 1989). However, they do closely resemble patterns of raw materialuse recorded for components in the nearby type-sequence from North West River (Fitzhugh 1972) and
also to some extent, those of sites on the central Labrador coast. Based on the archaeological sequencedefined at North West River (Fitzhugh 1972) and the central Labrador coast Nagle 1978), these
variations might conventionally be interpreted as chronological, whereby settlement west of Gull Lake
occurred throughout the early and middle Intermediate periods (Saunders Complex, 3,500 - 2,700 BP),settlement downstream was more intensive in the earlier part of the sequence (Brinex Complex, 3,200 -3,000 BP) or the latter part of the sequence (North West River Phase, as late as 2000 BP), and settlementupstream more intensive in the middle portion of the sequence (Charles Complex, 3,000 - 2,700 BP).However, it is worth noting that patterns of raw material use in Churchill River Intermediate sites
correlate in part with local raw material availability: river cobbles of "banded lava" have been identified
interpretative Suininaiy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 22
between Beaver Brook and Cache River, where this material predominates in sites, while quartzites,
though available all along the river, are particularly common on the beaches downstream of Gull Lake
and around western Lake Melville, where quartzites dominate the lithic assemblages as welL The sourcefor Saunders Chert has not yet been identified but it is probably not local; based on the predominance of
this material in central coast assemblages, it may be hypothesized that the source is located somewhere
in the interior hinterland of the central coast, perhaps between the Kanairiktok and Kogaluk watersheds.
It should be noted that elsewhere in Labrador, these Intermediate period complexes do appear to have a
culture-historical dimension, but overlap chronologically, and appear to reflect regional variation as
well; this issue is discussed at length by Nagle (1978). It is possible that these complexes result not fromchronological stylistic change but rather, from regional and chronological variations in the ways
harvesting areas and lithic sources were integrated into seasonal rounds. For instance, the apparent"sequence" of complexes at North West River may reflect changes in the harvesting areas used by the
inhabitants in the preceding season: people arriving from the north having greater proportions of
Saunders Chert in their toolkits, others from the south using primarily quartzites, while some arriving
from the Churchill River brought "banded lava". Similarly, on the Churchill River, "banded lava" and
Saunders Chert assemblages may represent occupation in the spring, prior to settlement at North WestRiver, while quartzite assemblages indicate occupation by groups that have summered in western LakeMelville and are moving upriver in the fall. These hypotheses are very preliminary, but it is worthexploring the possibility that raw material patterns may hold the key to understanding both settlement-subsistence patterns and cultural processes in this period of Labrador's prehistory.
3.2.8 Maritime Archaic and Late Precontact Settlement on the Churchill River
As has been noted already, the majority of the precontact sites recovered on the Churchill River appear
to date to the Intermediate period. Evidence for occupation in the preceding Maritime Archaic, andsubsequent Late Precontact periods, is sparse.
Evidence for Maritime Archaic settlement is limited to a single diagnostic artifact recovered in testing atMuatinek High Terrace 1, atop a high terrace in western Lake Melville, near the mouth of the Churchill
River. This is the first Maritime Archaic site to be recovered in western Lake Melville and the firstevidence that Maritime Archaic settlement extended this deeply into Hamilton Inlet. No sites of thisperiod have been recovered further inland along the Churchill River. Elsewhere in the interior of
Labrador-Ungava, evidence of Maritime Archaic settlement is patchy and uneven. Deeper in the interior,on the Lake Plateau, MacLeod (1967; 1968) reported ground slate artifacts which may be of MaritimeArchaic date. Still further to the west of the Project Area in the Caniapiscau region, there is little
evidence for occupation prior to the Intermediate period (Denton 1989). Yet to the north of the ProjectArea, Maritime Archaic sites have been documented in interior Labrador (e.g., Kamistastin (Loring,pers. comm.)) and Northwest Corners (Fitzhugh 1986), as well as Mushuau-nipi (Samson 1978).Clearly, we should generally expect to find some evidence for Maritime Archaic land use along interior
Interpretative Swnmay and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 23
L
waterways in Labrador, but it remains unclear just how intensive and widespread Maritime Archaic
interior settlement was, and equally unclear how the Churchill River figured in interior subsistence-settlement patterns at this time. The proximity of Muatinek High Terrace I to the mouth of the ChurchillRiver raises the possibility of some settlement along the river, and it would be expected that sites of this
antiquity to be relatively scarce because of post-depositional riverine erosion. However, the complete
lack of evidence further upstream, even on intensively-tested terraces with potential to yield such sites,
leads to the hypothesis that Maritime Archaic settlement was at the very least, less intensive than in the
following Intermediate period.
The Late Precontact period is more perplexing, if less problematic. Only one site within the Project Area
(Gull Lake 2) yielded any materials suggestive of Late Precontact cultural affiliation. The contrast with
the abundance of Intermediate period components is stark, and somewhat surprising.
Along the coast of Labrador, Late Precontact sites are numerous, certainly more common than those of
the Intermediate period. Late Precontact sites have also been recorded in small but respectable numbersduring limited survey in interior Labrador, at least to the north of the Kanairiktok (e.g., Biggin and Ryan
1989; Loring, pers. comm.) and on the Lake Plateau (e.g., MacLeod 1967; 1968; Loring et al. 2001). Inthe Caniapiscau region, Late Precontact sites dominate the precontact inventory and represent the most
substantial precontact occupation of the region (Denton 1989). A similar pattern is observed on the
lower Québec Côte-Nord (Pintal 1998), though further west along the Québec Céte-Nord (Chevrier
1977) the situation is more ambiguous.
Why then are sites of this period so scarce on the Churchill River? One possibility is that these sites arenot so scarce and, in fact, have already been recorded but that they appear to date to the Intermediate
period. This remains a possibility, but for the reasons discussed above, it is more plausible that the sitestypologically dated to the Intermediate period do date to the Intermediate period. The hypothesis thatLate Precontact sites are underrepresented because of sampling bias is not favoured since, except for the
1998 field program, testing activity has generally focused on zone types with potential to specifically
yield Late Precontact and historic sites. Over 67% of the testing locations in Gull Reservoir, for
instance, lie on such landforms. Finally, the hypothesis that Late Precontact sites have been removed bypost-depositional erosional processes is rejected. Almost certainly, precontact sites have been destroyed
by erosion; perhaps even the majority of the sites occupied prior to contact no longer exist. However, noplausible erosional process has been identified which could selectively remove Late Precontact siteswhile leaving Intermediate sites preserved in greater quantity. This is particularly so, given that morethan half of the Intermediate sites recorded lie on the present riverbank, not on preserved former terraces
remote from erosional effects.
Instead, the most plausible working hypothesis is that Late Precontact settlement on the Churchill River
did occur, but that it was significantly less intensive than in the preceding Intermediate period. It may be '
significant that Gull Lake 2 is situated on Gull Lake, the principal core settlement area on the Churchill
Interpretative Summaiy and 1ecoinmendations • October 24. 2001 Page 24 .
River, and an hypothesized harvesting area. It is possible that the Late Precontact period saw declininguse of the river as a long-distance travel route, but continued use as a harvesting area in the hinterland of
Lake Melville.
It should be repeated that while it is concluded that the reduced settlement on the Churchill River in the
precontact period is real, we do not infer reduced settlement of interior Labrador in general. Clearly,
Late Precontact coastal settlement was substantial, and interior settlement is also significant in thisperiod, particularly north of the Kanairiktok and west of the Lake Plateau. Rather, it is hypothesized that
the role of the Churchill River itself declined. Travel between the Labrador coast and the Labrador-Ungava interior, clearly attested by patterns of lithic raw material distribution, presumably shifted toalternate travel routes at this time. Only further archaeological research in the Naskaupi River watershed
and north of the Kanariktok can confirm whether the scarcity of Late Precontact sites in the ChurchillRiver valley is a localized phenomenon, or part of a broad regional shift in settlement patterns in the
forested interior west of Lake Melville.
3.2.9 Summary of Precontact Settlement Patterns
In summary, the CRPP HROA has recovered evidence for occupation of the Churchill River valley in
the Maritime Archaic, Intermediate and Late precontact periods. The vast majority of the sites recoveredappear to pertain to the Intermediate period. It is hypothesized that this pattern is real, and that the most
intensive occupation of the valley occurred during this time.
Evidence for Maritime Archaic settlement is limited and to some extent, this may be attributed to post-
depositional erosional processes.
Within the Intermediate period, sites are generally small, but large and dense cultural deposits have beenencountered on Gull Lake. There appear to be two regional site clusters: one in the Gull Lake area and
the other at the mouth of the Churchill River. It is hypothesized that the Churchill River served as adendritic travel route leading from western Lake Melville to various destinations south, west, and north
of the Valley. However, it is hypothesized that the Churchill River served as more than a travel route,and that the site clusters on the estuary and around Gull Lake reflect more intensive seasonal settlementand harvesting activities in these two areas. As elsewhere in Labrador, including North West River,
these Intermediate sites appear to be characterized by distinct variations in raw material use. It ishypothesized that these may reflect not simply diachronic stylistic change, but rather, variations in
Intermediate settlement patterns in the interior and that raw material patterns may hold the key tounderstanding shifting patterns of land use across eastern Labrador-Ungava.
Only one Late precontact site has been recorded, and it is hypothesized that settlement in the Churchill
Valley declined significantly after the Inten-nediate period. More specifically, it is suggested that theriver became less important as a travel route at this time. This is not to say that interior settlement in
Interpretative Suniniary and Recommendations • October 24, 200/ Page 25
Labrador-Ungava declined in general, in fact the reverse appears to be true. Presumably, then,decreased travel along the Churchill River was accompanied by a shift in emphasis toward other
waterways leading to the Lake Plateau, such as the Naskaupi River, or others further north, oralternatively, toward other routes leading south, such as the Kenamu.
In both the Intermediate and Late precontact periods, the results of the CRPP surveys suggest thatprecontact subsistence and settlement in the Study Area as a whole may have undergone periodic re-alignments. It is anticipated that further research will reveal precontact settlement in the region as more
than static, stable adaptations, and instead as dynamic cultural systems with a history and culture processof great complexity.
3.3 Early Historic Settlement Patterns in the Project Area
Early historic sites along the Churchill River include sites of two distinct types: HBC posts and Innucamps.
3.3.1 Hudsons Bay Company Posts
3.3.1.1 Historical Background
Background research commencing in 1998 identified three HBC posts along the Churchill River, all
outposts of the North West River Post: Sandy Banks, Gull Island, and Winokapau.
Sandy Banks, situated between Muskrat Falls and Gull Island, was first mentioned in the North WestRiver Post journals in 1836, though it may have been in use prior to this date. The outpost subsequently
remained in use at least until 1875, after which no further reference appears in the journals (seeJWEL/INEN 2001a). Gull Island was initially thought to have served only as a depot and only for a brief
period (IEDE/JWEL 2000), but additional archival research in 1999 indicated that the post was in use by
1839 and remained in use until 1875 as a trapping station and as a staging area for travel upriver to
Winokapau. The Winokapau Post appears to have been an ambitious undertaking, intended as a stationfor trapping, trading with the Innu, and also as a service post for Fort Nascopie further west on the LakePlateau. However, it does not appear to have been a great success, and it is only recorded as being in usebetween 1863 and 1873.
3.3.1.2 Archaeological Sites Recovered
Sandy Banks and Winokapau were located during fieldwork in 1998 (for descriptions, see IEDE/JWEL2000; JWEL/INEN 200 Ia). However, three seasons of fieldwork in the Gull Island area have failed tolocate the remains of the Gull Island post. It was initially believed that Gull Island was used only as adepot, and only for a brief period (IEDE/JWEL 2000), and that consequently, the remains may be
Interpretative Summary miii Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 26
fl relatively ephemeral and difficult to locate, bit additional archival research in 1999 (JWEL/TNEN2001a) suggests that Gull Island should be as archaeologically-visible as the other two posts. It is
possible that the site has been destroyed by erosion or by previous geotechnical or other activities in the
Gull Island area.
3.3.2 Innu Campsites
3.3.2.1 Historical background
The following is summarized from the 1998 project background research; for detailed results and
references, see IEDE/JWEL (2000). There is little detailed information on Innu settlement in the Project
Aiea prior to the nineteenth century. Though the Innu interacted with European traders before this time,
these interactions occurred primarily at coastal fur trade posts. The Innu spent most of each year hunting
and travelling in the interior, where Europeans appear rarely to have ventured. The establishment of
European enterprises on the coast included significant Basque and, later, English, activity. But initially,the most important for the Innu were the French, who began establishing their posts on the Côte-Nord in
the seventeenth century. French activity gradually expanded east and north, Courtmanche receiving theconcession for the coast from Kegaska to Hamilton Inlet in 1702, and Louis Fomel establishing his post
at North West River in 1743.
The early nineteenth century saw the HBC begin acquiring certain of the King's Posts on the Côte-Nord,and also establishing their own post at North West River. Gradually, it became clear to the HBC factorsthat the fur trade had not transformed the Innu into clients of the HBC, but rather, that trapping hadsimply been incorporated into a traditional way of life in which traditional subsistence activities such ascaribou hunting, held priority. Moreover, it became clear that those Innu hunters who operated in the
interior ranged widely across the Labrador-Ungava peninsula, and were by no means tied to particular
trading posts. On the contrary, they could readily move anywhere to trade to their best advantage. Deep
interior posts like Fort Nascopie (1838 - 1868) and Winokapau Post (1863 - 1874) were established by
the HBC in an effort to bring the trade closer to the Innu interior hunting grounds, and to intercept trade
which might otherwise go to posts on the Côte-Nord and elsewhere.
Neither Fort Nascopie nor Winokapau Post was a great success. Fort Nascopie, for instance, was poorlysupplied, and also poorly sited: while it lay on a major Innu travel route, it stood in a location whereInnu were not inclined to stay for any great time, in part because of poor local fish and caribou resources(McCaffrey 1989). It is not clear whether Winokapau Post suffered for the same reason. Yet there seems
little doubt that Winokapau lay on a travel route known and frequented by the Innu; Innu guides easily
led Père Babel to the post location from Mingan in the summer of 1866, soon after the post first opened(Tremblay 1977).
Interpreaiive Swmnaiy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 27
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, as the fur trade reached its peak, the lnnu were becoming
increasingly drawn into the trade. By the end of the century, the Innu were abandoning the Churchill
River as a primary travel route as more and more Innu chose to favour the growing mission at Sept-Iles,
and either left the Lake Melville area altogether, or came to trade at North West River by other routes.
At the same time, Settler trappers from western Lake Melville came increasingly to encroach on thetrapping areas along the Churchill River. The causal connection between the decline of Innu settlementon the Churchill and the rise of Settler trapping in the area is not entirely clear. Tanner (1947) indicates Jthat Settler encroachments were driving the Innu from traditional trapping areas, not without conflict.
Mailhot's discussion of the issue implies the Innu had their own motives in abandoning the Churchill
River, and that Settler encroachment was only a consequence (Mailhot 1997: 27). Wherever the truthlies, in the early days of the twentieth century, the Churchill River was increasingly becoming a trappingarea which Settlers from western Lake Melville claimed as their own.
13,2.2 Archaeological Sites Recovered
The sample of historic Innu sites from the Project Area has increased with every year of field research
but remains surprisingly small, particularly with regard to early historic sites. Historic sites identified to
date include the former HBC posts at Sandy Banks and Winokapau Post, along with several tilt sites
likely associated with Settler trapping along the river. Eleven historic sites of Innu origin have been
recovered, but all appear to date to the latter portion of the historic period (i.e., the first half of thetwentieth century). Historic campsites clearly dating prior to 1900 have not yet been identified.
The apparent scarcity of Innu campsites dating to the nineteenth century and earlier is surprising, giventhe historical background. The scarcity of historic campsites also contrasts with the results ofarchaeological surveys in north-central Labrador (e.g., JWEL/MIBC/TCC 1997), where numeroushistoric Innu campsites have been recorded, and where such sites may often be both large and
conspicuous. Following the 1998 season, it was suggested that sampling bias may account for the
scarcity of historic Innu sites, but work in 1999 and 2000 has subsequently completed intensive
subsurface sampling at many locations specifically selected for their potential for historic remains.Diagnostic surface-visible remains such as earthwalled tentrings, so ubiquitous in Labrador, have notbeen encountered. Moreover, diagnostic historic artifacts have rarely been encountered in subsurfacetesting, though it is worth noting that even large and conspicuous earthwalled tentring sites elsewhere inLabrador often yield few if any associated subsurface artifacts (see Loring 1992: Appendix A).
If the lack of early historic Innu sites is unlikely to reflect either a lack of occupation in this time period,
or a sampling bias in the research, then there must be some other explanation.
Specifically, it is hypothesized that sites of this period have an unusually low level of archaeologicalvisibility, which makes them difficult to identify using conventional archaeological survey methods.
Intei-pietativc Swnmay and Recommendations • Qcobe 24, 2001 Page 28
It is already clear that elsewhere in Labrador where such sites have been recorded, they are usually not
identified on the basis of artifact scatters, which are generally extremely sparse. The decline of lithic toolmanufacture is associated with a sharp decline in the deposition and preservation of domestic debris on
historic Innu sites, a phenomenon which continues at least until the use of canned goods becomes morecommon later in the twentieth century and, subsequently, well-preserved plastic debris begins to appear
in quantity following the 1970s. Rather, early historic Innu sites are generally identified in survey bytheir conspicuous surface-visible remains, specifically earthwalled tentrings. It is these latter featureswhich appear to be lacking in the archaeological record of the Churchill River valley. Presently, two
hypotheses can be offered to account for the absence of these features.
1. Innu did not employ earthwalled structures in the Churchill River valley during the historic period,
perhaps because the seasonality, function, or duration of campsites in this area discouraged the use
of these structures.
2. Earthwalled tentrings were constructed at historic Innu campsites in the Churchill River valley, butthese remains do not remain visible in forested settings as they do further north, where such features
are more commonly recorded. It is worth noting that where earthwalled tentring sites are found, theyare generally encountered on sites where Irmu occupation has not only occurred in the historic
period, but continues down to the present day. It is the open, anthropogenic vegetation associated
with long-used campsites, as much as the natural vegetation, which contributes to the surface-
visibility of these features. Generally, in Labrador there is sufficient continuity in settlement that
historic sites are easily observed. In the Churchill River valley, however, open campsites withanthropomorphic vegetation are lacking, presumably because of the discontinuity in settlement
caused by the decline of Innu settlement in the valley at the turn of the twentieth century.
At present there is a lack of sufficient data to favour one or the other hypothesis. It is likely, however
that despite their low surface visibility, early historic Innu campsites do exist in the valley and, in fact,
such sites may already be recorded in the inventory, concealed beneath sites with more abundant debris
and more conspicuous surface-visible remains, such as later historic Innu sites, or sites later occupied by
Settler tilts. It now appears the best prospect for identifying and investigating early historic Innu
settlement in the Churchill River valley lies in test excavations at later histonc components
3.4 Contemporary Settlement Patterns in the Project Area
3.4.1 Ethnographic Data
The regional context mapping program (JWELIINBN 2001b: Section 4.1.2) has identified a broader
cultural and geographic context for the interpretation of the Project Area archaeological data. In
summary, reported Innu camp locations date to the late historic and early contemporary period. On aregional scale, these camps appear relatively evenly distributed across the landscape but, in general,
Interpretative Suinniaiy and Recommendations • Oco bar 24, 200/ Page 29
camp locations form linear arrangements along the coast and river valleys. This distribution map of pre-
1980 camp locations reflects a complex network of travel routes, linking Québec Cãte-Nord and Central
Labrador Innu communities (see Mailhot 1993: 46). The Churchill River is embedded in these networks
and occupies a central position between areas of settlement and travel in western Lake Melville, theLake Plateau, and the Côte-Nord.
Labrador Innu land use data also depict a series of major harvesting areas located southeast and
northwest of the Goose Bay-Sheshatshiu sub-region, broadly associated with the headwaters of theEagle and Goose/Red Wine rivers, respectively, with a few patches elsewhere in the interior. TheChurchill River reaches west from western Lake Melville to skirt the southern edge of the Red Wineharvesting areas. Within and between these broad headwater harvesting areas run linear harvesting
corridors, generally corresponding to travel routes and to major rivers. The Churchill River is one ofthese.
It has been suggested that the Michikamats region located at the western terminus of the Project Areawas a major hunting-gathering area for the Innu of Labrador-Ungava and the Côte-Nord (Loring et aL
2001: 2-7). Travel routes to and from Michikamats did not normally include the Churchill River, except
perhaps when Winokapau Post was in operation. Prior to 1960, the Innu would normally use the
Naskaupie and Beaver rivers (north) or the Moisie and other rivers located further west (Mailhot 1993:142). However, maps showing contemporary land use patterns and the distribution of Innu campsconfirm that the Churchill River is an important part of the Sheshatshiu Innu territory (Thid: 157-164).
Innu senior informants interviewed during the 1998 to 2000 HROA also provided statements regardingthe number of travel camps that have been used for short periods along the Churchill River, betweenSheshatshiu and Shoal River. They have also indicated that certain areas, notably in the Gull Lake area,
were also used by Irmu from the Québec Côte-Nord (JWEL/INEN 2001a: 78-81). Some of these sites,as well as a large number of Innu land use locations in the Gull Island Reservoir area, were investigated
during the CRPP archaeological surveys (Section 14.2).
Background research conducted in 1998 during the CRPP HROA identified a number of likely locationsfor cabins and tilts during the late nineteenth century (IEDE/JWEL 2000: 78). Although preciselocational information is often lacking in ethnohistoric documents, the CRPP archaeological surveyshave identified a number of cabins and tilt sites for the contemporary period, some of which were in useduring the preceding late historic period (Section 3.4.2).
Settlers interviewed provided significant information and maps showing likely locations of trap-lines,
tilts or cabins, camp sites, caches, as well as wood cutting and berry picking areas along the ChurchillRiver. Several tilt sites located along the Churchill River were used during the late historic and the earlycontemporary periods (1960s and 1970s), with a few sites still in use during the 1998 to 2000 period.As well, a number of Settler traps were identified during the CRPP archaeological surveys.
Inierpietalive Suniinaiy and Recommendations 'October 24, 200/ Page 30
3.4.2 Archaeological Data
There is a dramatic increase in the number and type of sites between the historic and contemporary
periods in the Project Area. Site categories for this period include a variety of habitation sites such as
tents or camps (61 sites), cabins (17) and tilts (10 sites). Generally, the term "camp site" or "tent site"
refers to sites thought to reflect Innu occupation while most tilts pertain to Settler land use, and cabins to
Settler or "Other" occupants. However, as indicated in previous reports (IEDE/JWBL 2000;
JWEL/[NEN 2001a; 2001b and 2001c), it is not always possible to distinguish between Innu and Settler
sites during the contemporary period. This is particularly true for cutting and hunting locations.
However, a specific type of marten trap (box type) was defined as a cultural marker during the 1998 to2000 HROA. Descriptions of box-type traps (Settler) are presented in previous field program reports
(e.g., JWEL/INEN 2001 C: pp. 33 and 54). Several of the habitation sites also contain evidence of other
activities or functions, such as trapping, hunting and transportation (e.g., camp and associated canoe, tilt
and marten traps). Several sites (13) contain hearths or fireplaces (but no habitation feature) and couldalso represent overnight camps. In addition, evidence of harvesting activities has been recorded at
several other sites (e.g., 35 cutting locations, 28 locations with traps or snares, and five locations with
gun shells and other evidence of hunting activities).
A map showing contemporary site distribution as well as sites from other periods in the Project Area, is
presented in Volume 2 (Appendices). Habitation sites are numerous along the shoreline of the Churchill
River, near the mouth of tributaries and small brooks. While eight cabins reported in the Gull Island
Reservoir area represent 72.7% of the cabins reported in the Churchill River valley, only three tilt sites
(Or 30% of the tilts occupied during the contemporary period) were found west of Gull Island. It appearsthat this pattern reflects a shift towards the western part of the valley during the late contemporary
period (cabins tend to replace the earlier tilts). However, it must be noted that two tilts dating to the
historic period were also found in the Gull Island Reservoir area. Camps or tent sites located along the
Churchill River number 54. Of these, 36 (66.6%) are located within the Gull Island Reservoir area.
Considering the size of this project component, it appears that these sites are evenly distributed along the
river, as opposed to the distribution of tilts discussed above.
Trapping sites, including habitation sites where trapping was identified as a secondary function, number
26 in the Churchill River valley. Of these, 17 (65.5%) of the total number of sites in this category are
located within the Gull Island Reservoir area. Again, this category of sites appears evenly distributed
across the valley, and perhaps this apparent regularity reflects trapper's subsistence strategies during the
contemporary period (e.g., the necessity to set traps at regular intervals along trap-lines to maximizereturns).
Interpretative Suminmy and Recommendations • October 24, 200/ Page 31
Fifty-two sites dating to the contemporary period were recorded in the proposed transmission line
corridor, between Gull Island and Churchill Falls, in the hinterland north of the Churchill River, during Jthe 1998 to 2000 CRFP archaeological surveys. Most sites were found along the shorelines of ponds andrivers, but a small proportion (10%) of the sites were located in the interfiuvial upland areas. As in theChurchill River valley, a variety of functions are represented at these sites. However, certain sitefunction types are missing from the sample of sites: no tilts were discovered in the hinterland north of
the Churchill River. However, six cabins were located in this project component, and it is possible that
this also reflects a shift from tilts to cabins during the late contemporary period, when the presence of aroad facilitated land use in the interfiuvial upland areas.
Finally, it must be noted that four locations containing industrial remains were recorded during theCRPP assessment. These sites include the remains of a sawmill on the north shore of the Churchill
River estuary and a core shack also on the north shore of the Churchill River, in the Gull IslandReservoir area. These are not archaeological sites and are not protected under the Historic ResourcesAct. However, these sites reflect the latest episode of the Churchill River valley. Activities representedat these sites may have had an effect on the integrity of earlier sites, particularly when industrial siteswere located in high potential zones for historic resources.
[nIei-pretaive Swninwy and Recommendalions • Oco bar 24, 200/ Page 32
4M DATA GAPS
During the course of the HROA, several significant data gaps were identified and attempts were made to
rectify them. These are summarized in Table 4.1, indicating the project component with which each
data gap was identified or attributed, the work undertaken during that component, and the remedial
action taken, if any, during subsequent components of the research.
Certain of the data gaps waant more detailed discussion, either because they were critical in guiding
the course of the HROA, or because of complexities in taking action to rectify them. These data gaps
may be classified into four groups:
data gaps which can and should be rectified in the context of HROA;data gaps which appear to persist in the HROA but which are explicable and may be considered
rectified;data gaps which can and should be rectified following HROA; and
data gaps which cannot practically be rectified in context of HROA.
4.1 Data Gaps Which Can be Rectified in the Context of the HROA
4.1.1 Transmission Line I
The Transmission Line 1 corridor has not been intensively investigated. Instead, the Transmission Line
1 Study Area has been sampled in support of the Project Area archaeological potential mapping, in part
to assist in selecting a more precise route for this feature. Until final route selection, this project
component must be considered incompletely investigated. Completion of the work may occur as part of
the HROA or in the context of HRIA and mitigation measures (see Sections 4.3 and 5.0).
hierpretazie Summary and Recommendations October 24, 2001 Page 33
Table 4.1 Summary of Data Gaps and Remedial Action, 1998-2000 HROA
.............................
Component Action Data Gap
1.0 1998 Background Research.1 Literature Review Literature Review Study Area excludes Québec
1.2 Site Inventory Analysis Analysis of interior site None. includes QuébecLocation criteria
1.3 Ethnographic Interviews Two Settlers interviewed No Innu Interviews
1.4 Review of hints land use data Review of data for Study Area Information was received too lateto incorporate in the 1998 field program
2.0 1998 Training Program 2-week training program Brief; focus on method, not theory
3.0 1998 FieLd Program3.1 Churchill Estuary Survey of selected high Little survey north of Goose Bay
potential landforms Focus on high elevation terracesLate precontactihistoric scarceSampled only
3.2 Gull Island-Muskrat Falls Survey of selected high Sampled onlypotential landforms
Late Precontact/historic scarce
3.3 Gull Island Reservorr Survey of selected high Survey effort less intensivepotential landforms Focus on high elevation terraces
Late Precontact/historic scarce
3.4 Transmission Line I Survey of selected high Sampled onlypotential landforms
3.5 Transmission Line 2 Survey of selected high Sampled onlypotential landforms
3.6 Transmission Line 3 Survey of selected high Sampled onlypotential landforms
3.7 Churchill Falls 11 Survey oIselected high Sampled onlypotential landfornis
3.8 Atikonak LaIe Survey of selected high Sampled onlypotential landforms
Remedia' Action
Item 9.1 Québec data incorporated ininterpretation where appropriate
None
ttem 7.0
Item 8.4
Items 60, 10.0
Item 11.4Items 8.3, 8.4, 9.2, 11.4Item 11.4None. Adequate for cultural resource management below dam
None. Muskrat Falls development dropped from Project. Surveyadequate for cultural resource management below Gull Island damItem 11.3
Items 8.3, 8.4, 11.2Items 8.3, 8.4, 9.2, 11.2Items 8.3, 8.4, 9.2, 11.2
Item 11.1
None. Transmission Line 2 dropped from Project.
None. Transmission Line 3 dropped from Project.
None. Churchill Falls II dropped from Project.
None. Atikonak Diversion dropped from Project.
Interpretative Summmy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 34.... p...,..,.,,,. I I .
I L
Component
4.0 1998 Potential Scheme
5.0 1999 Archh'al Research
6.0 1999 Training Refresher
7.0 1999 Ethnographic Intervkws
8.0 1999 FieLd Program8.1 Cache River Excavation
8.2 Winokapau Test Excavation
8.3 General Field Survey
8.4 Land Use Survey
9.0 2000 Potential Mapping9.1 Regional Context Mapping
9.2 Project Area Potential Mapping
10.0 2000 Training Program
11.0 2000 Field Program11.1 Transmission Line I
11.2 Gull Island Reservoir
11.3 Gull Island-Muskrat Fails
11.4 Churchill Estuary
11.5 Gull Island Project Features
Action Data Gal) Remedial Action
Definition of potential Not mapped onto Project Area item 9.2zone types
Review of HBC Post Journals Some years yielded little or no information NoneQuébec Côte-Nord HBCarchives not reviewed None, beyond agreed scope of the CR.PP HROA
3-day refresher program None None
Two senior Innu interviewed Small sample size None
Excavations at Cache River
Test excavations at Winokapau
Testing at low elevationriverfront terraces
Survey at LAMAP Points
None. Complete excavation
Further excavation needed atmitigation stage
Brief programLate Precontactlhistoric scarce
Survey at certain locations impractical
None
None
Items S.4, 11.2Items 8.4, 11.2
N one
None
None
None
None
None, pending final route selection
None. Sample of Type 01 zones sufficiently extensive.
None. Adequate for cultural resource management below Gull Is land darn
None. Adequate for cultural resource management below Gull Island darn
None, pending finalizing feature locations.
Mapping archaeological and Numerous gaps in Qudbcc dataland use data across Study Area incorporated
Québec land-use data not available
Mapping archaeological Certain zone types underrepresentedpotential in Project Area or potential to be verified
Gaps in map coverage near majortributaries (Minipi, Metchin, Cache)
Training in sampling and Nonescientific research design
Survey in selected zones Sampled onlyalong route
Investigation of Type 01 zones 13.5% of Type 01 zonesand selected underrepresented not investigatedzone types.
Survey in selected zones Sampled only, in support ofmapping project
Survey in selected zones Sampled only, in support ofmapping project
Survey of all proposed Certain feature locations impreciseProject Features
Interpretative Suinrnaiy and Recommendations • October 24, 200/ Page 35
....
4.1.2 Gull Island Area Project Features
Proposed Project Features in the Gull Island area have, for the most part, been intensively investigated.
However, detailed, fine-scale basemapping of these features has not yet been made available. It is
possible that the locations of same of these features have not been precisely fixed. This is particularly
problematic in the case of Project Feature PF0009, the proposed access road leading from the camp tothe proposed temporary bridge across the Gull Lake inflow. Intensive investigation requires that theprecise route for this feature be marked, either on the ground or on fine-scale maps. Consequently, thisproject component must be considered incompletely investigated. Completion of the work may occur as
part of the HROA or in the context of HRIA arid mitigation measures (see Sections 4.3 and 5.0).
4.1.3 Gaps in Project Area Map Coverage
The Historic Resources Potential Mapping Project did not achieve complete coverage within the Gull HIsland Reservoir component, owing to gaps in the available 1:5,000 scale base mapping. Gaps werenoted where the proposed reservoir would extend along certain major tributaries, most notably Minipi,Metchin and Cache rivers. Testing locations within these umnapped areas were investigated in 1998, sothese are not wholly unstudied areas, but there are, nevertheless, gaps in the potential mapping, and
testing locations within the unmapped areas did not contribute to the characterization of sampling effortper zone type, or to the potential ratings per zone type.
4.2 Data Gaps which are Persistent but Explicable
This category includes data gaps which persist after intensive efforts to remediate them. In both cases, itis argued that there are no further measures which are feasible arid which promise to rernediate these
gaps.
4.2.1 Scarcity of Late Precontact Sites in the Site Inventory
Following three seasons of field survey, Late Precontact sites remain extremely scarce in the HROA siteinventory for the Project Area. It was initially believed that this apparent data gap was related to another: Jthe underrepresentation of low-elevation riverfront testing locations following the 1998 phase of theHROA. Subsequent work in 1999 and 2000 has rectified the low-elevation data gap but Late Precontactsites remain scarce. It is hypothesized that Late Precontact settlement in the Churchill River valley wasrelatively ephemeral and that this "data gap" is in fact a culture-historical phenomenon. Alternatively, it
is possible that additional Late Precontact sites have been recovered but have been classified as
Intermediate sites because of their lithic raw material patterns. This hypothesis will be tested as a matter
of course in the event of mitigation excavation following the HROA (see Sections 4.3 and 5.0).
Whichever hypothesis is verified, the scarcity of Late Precontact sites is essentially no longer consideredto represent a data gap as Late Precontact sites are either more abundant in the inventory and remain to
Interpretative Suinmaiy and Recommendations - October 24, 200/ Page 36 .
be identified following the HROA, or they are scarce and this scarcity reflects a real culture-historical
pattern.
4.2.2 Scarcity of Early Historic Innu Campsites in the Site Inventory
Following three seasons of field survey, early historic Innu campsites, like Late Precontact sites, remain
extremely scarce in the HROA site inventory for the Project Area. As with the Late Precontact sites, itwas initially believed that this apparent data gap was related to the underrepresentation of low-elevation
riverfront testing locations following the 1998 phase of the HROA. Subsequent work in 1999 and 2000
has rectified the low-elevation data gap but early historic Itmu sites remain scarce.
In contrast with the Late Precontact "data gap", there is some reason to believe the early historic datagap represents an actual lacuna in the HROA data recovery. Background research and literature review
suggests that Innu settlement should have been substantial in the Project Area in this period; certainly
the HBC had reason to believe it was. While it is possible that the role of the Churchill River in historic
Innu travel and harvesting has been overstated in the sources, it is more likely that historic Innusettlement was more significant than the site inventory suggests and that the scarcity of sites in theinventory does represent a data gap. It is not, however, thought to result from a deficiency in the
sampling design, or even from a shortcoming in the testing method but rather, from reduced sitevisibility resulting from a combination of sparse debris deposits, natural vegetation cover, anddiscontinuity in early-late historic land use in the Churchill Valley. This site visibility problem does notappear to be amenable to remediation through conventional archaeological tecimiques. However, it islikely that early historic components lie hidden within identified historic Innu sites. Consequently, this
data gap can probably be rectified to some extent through excavation of sites already recorded in theinventory (see Section 5.0).
4.3 Data Gaps which May be Rectified following HROA
This category of data gaps may also be considered to include the gaps discussed in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2,and 4.2.1. It consists of gaps which can and should be rectified in the context of mitigative workfollowing the HROA, and as such, falls within the subject of recommendations. Recommendations arediscussed in detail in Section 5.0.
4.4 Data Gaps Which Cannot or Need Not be Rectified in the Context of the HROA
4.4.1 Definition of the Study Area to Exclude Adjacent Areas in Québec
From the beginning, the Study Area for background research within the CRPP HROA has been definedwith reference to the existing Québec-Labrador boundary and has excluded adjacent portions of Québec.Initially, this definition occun-ed in the context of a joint LHP/Hydro-Quebec undertaking in which it
Interpretative Swninaiy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 37
was assumed that HROA in Québec would be commissioned by Hydro-Quebec and fall within the
jurisdiction of the Province of Québec. However, the Québec portion of the development has 'Isubsequently lapsed, and following exploratory archaeological potential mapping on the Romaine River(Archéotec 2000), archaeological work has not been pursued.
Since precontact and historic settlement on the Churchill River would always have taken place in thecontext of widespread trade, travel and harvesting activities extending beyond Labrador to interior
Québec and the Côte-Nord, it may be inferred that the exclusion of Québec from the backgroundresearch represents a data gap. This data gap, however, is more apparent than real. Though detailed
discussion of archaeological evidence from Québec has not been presented, the research team is not
unaware of this evidence, and Québec data has been brought in to inform the interpretation of results
where appropriate (Chevrier 1977; Denton 1989; Lee 1967; MCC 2001; Pintal 1998; Samson 1978). It
must be stressed that for typological comparisons with the Churchill River, the most relevantcomparable archaeological sequences are found in Labrador, and specifically, western Lake Melville.For interior settlement pattern comparisons, relevant data are available from Labrador but the samplesizes are small. Consequently, though Québec did not foffil a part of the Study Area per se, siteinventory analysis of interior site location criteria in 1998 did incorporate data on sites from relevant
Québec studies, particularly those in the Caniapiscau and Mushuau-nipi areas. In fact, Québec sites
comprised the majority of the sites examined in the analysis. Thus, though formally excluded from the
background research program, data from Québec have in fact, been considered extensively throughoutthe research, and analysis of these data has been integrated as needed into the research program.
4.4.2 Absence of Québec Innu Land Use Data
While Innu Nation land use data were consulted repeatedly during the CRPP HROA, data on Innu landuse collected from Innu communities in Québec was not reviewed as part of the background research.
The reasons are similar to those discussed above in relation to Québec archaeological data. Once again,this might be considered a "data gap", though access to these data would likely not affect the
methodology or results at the HROA stage per se. Unlike archaeological reports, which can generally beaccessed, Québec Innu land use data are effectively inaccessible to the CRPP and likely to remain so for
the foreseeable future.
4.4.3 Small Sample Size of Elder Informant Interviews
Informant interviews for the CRPP HROA consisted of interviews with two Settler trappers conductedin 1998, and interviews (plus on-site visits) with two Innu elders from Sheshatshiu in 1999. For a varietyof reasons, a more extensive interview process planned for 1998 could not be implemented. The samplesize is admittedly small, and this could be construed as a data gap. However, given the constraints,
further work would now entail assembling a large and reasonably representative body of informantinterviews, and should ideally include interviews with Innu presently residing in Québec. The former
Interpieiai'e Summaiy and Recommendations • October 24. 2001 Page 38
would constitute a land use study well beyond the scope required for the HROA; the latter is unlikely to
be achievable in the foreseeable future.
It is proposed that data from any contemporary land use study should be made available to inform
subsequent stages in the archaeological assessment process.
4.4.4 Unevenness of Land Use Data in Study Area
Innu Nation land use data were made available for the background research component in 1998, the landuse survey in 1999, and the Regional Context mapping in 2000. These datasets are large, but not
rsl .vTcf r1rt1ri1l2rlV flfl 2 hrn2d r1oinn21 Ptifvina
these data gaps goes well beyond the scope of the HROA.
4.4.5 Unevenness of Archaeological Data in Study Area
Data on the inventory of recorded archaeological sites in Labrador were made available by the Provinceof Newfoundland and Labrador during the background research component in 1998 and the RegionalContext Mapping in 2000. Similar data were obtained for adjacent areas from the Province of Québec.These data are reasonably comprehensive within areas that have seen intensive research. However, site
recording criteria vary greatly over time and between projects. Moreover, substantial portions of
Labrador have seen little or no archaeological research. The resulting data gaps and unevenness in thedatasets makes interpretation of regional archaeological patterning difficult except at the broadest level.These data gaps in the archaeological record of Labrador and adjacent portions of Québec are vast, and
rectifying them lies beyond the scope of the HROA.
4.4.6 Lacunae in HBC Journal Records
In retrospect, the rationale for investigating HBC archival data from North West River post in 1998 and
1999 was based on the geographic proximity and the documented supply links between North West
River post and the three Churchill River outposts, Sandy Banks, Gull Island and Winokapau
(JWEL/INEN 2001a: 21). The resulting information supports this rationale.
The North West River post journals were selected because the posts in the study area have no separatejournals of their own and were outposts of the North West River post. The three Churchill River postswere subsidiary to North West River in the HBC's own operating structure. They were supplied,
maintained and established by North West River post (not Mingan or any other Québec Côte-Nordposts). The records from Mingan and elsewhere may include passing reference to Winokapau, and
perhaps the two other posts, but the most likely source for detailed information on the use, layout,location, function and supply of these posts had to be the journals of their parent operation: North WestRiver post.
Interpretative Swnniaiy ciiid Recommendations • October 24, 200/ Page 39
Although the lack of possible links with the Québec CôteNord posts, of which Mingan is one of several
could be seen as a data gap, the potential ior substantial benefit from addressing this gap is consideredquite low. Also, the HBC archives for the Québec Côte-Nord are extremely large datasets and theirstudy goes well beyond the agreed scope of the CRPP HROA.
The HBC journal entries for the North West River post were uneven in quality, entries from the mid-
1870s being considerably less informative than those from the preceding years. There were also "gaps"
or periods during which little or no information was available on the posts of primary concern in the
CRPP HROA. Archival sources frequently contain recording gaps of this sort. These data gaps cannotbe rectified within the context of the CRPP HROA.
4.4.7 Incomplete Testing of Zone Types in Gull Island Reservoir
Approximately 13% of the Type 01 zones (23 in all) in the Gull Island Reservoir have not been tested.In some instances, there were logistical difficulties in accessing the zones in question. While it would befeasib'e to achieve 100% sampling of this zone type or close to it, it is proposed that survey coverage in
the Gull Island Reservoir area has reached a saturation point beyond which the recovery of new sites is
not expected in quantity (see JWEL/INBN 2001c). Any additional sites which would be recovered are
unlikely to have any significant impact on the number and range of sites recorded in the inventory. Inshort, the sample of Type 01 zones is considered adequate, and further sampling of this zone type is notessential. Similarly, Type 04 and 08 zones are somewhat underrepresented relative to their abundance inthe landscape. While it would be feasible to increase sampling effort in these zone types to enhance their
contribution to the sample, it is proposed that both zone types have been sampled sufficiently to infertheir potential to yield archaeological sites.
4,4.8 Remaining Uncertainties in Archaeological Potential of Zone Types
All zone types were assigned archaeological potential ratings on completion of the Project Area HistoricResources Potential Mapping. There remains some potential for refining this scheme and for adjustingthe potential ratings of zone types. For instance, the potential of Zone Types 04 and 08 may beoverrated, as may the potential of Zone Type ii. Zone Type 07 was not rated at all as it was not presentwithin the mapped Project Area. Zone Type 05 may be underrated, in certain circumstances whichremain to be clearly defined. These uncertainties could be regarded as data gaps. However, it isproposed that the existing data are sufficient for defining and implementing the potential rating scheme
in the CRPP HROA and that further testing of the scheme is actually best deferred to subsequentHROAs in Labrador. Zone Type 07 for instance, is not even present within the mapped CRPP ProjectArea and its rating must be determined elsewhere. Zone Type 05 is actually significantlyoverrepresented in the sampling program and further investigation in the context of the CRPP would notbe appropriate.
Interpretative Summwy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 40
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
51 Further Data Collection
5.1.1 Rectification of Mapping Data Gaps
The data gaps in the available 1:5,000 basemapping for the Gull Island Reservoir are not large but they
do encompass the lower reaches of potentially strategically important tributaries and it is recommended
that these data gaps be rectified.
5.1.2 Further Field Assessment of Transmission Line 1
The Transmission Line 1 Study Area has been sampled and mapped cii a broad scale. This has provided
a general assessment of archaeological potential in the uplands north of the Churchill River, which canassist in planning the final precise routing for the line. Finer scale mapping, as well as more intensive
IT field assessment, will be required once the route is determined. The precise nature and scope of the field
program cannot be detennined until the route is finalized.
5.1.3 Further Field Assessment of Gull Island Area Project Features
Further field assessment will likely be required on proposed Project Features in the Gull IslandReservoir area pending detailed information on the precise location of these features. More detailedassessment will certainly be required along the proposed access road.
5.1.4 Modelling of Potential Erosional Impacts Downstream from Gull Island Dam
This is not an HROA element as such, but many of the recommendations made here, including the
development and implementation of any long-term cultural resource management plan, require betterunderstanding of the anticipated erosional effects downstream from the proposed Gull Island dam. At
this stage, it is assumed that erosional impacts will be most severe within the first 10 km or soimmediately downstream of the dam and certain of the following recommendations are predicated on
this (imprecise) assumption.
5.2 Recommended Mon ito ring/CRM Measures
5.2.1 Development of a Cultural Resource Management Plan
In order to plan subsequent cultural resource management, including mitigation and monitoring, during
the construction phase and beyond, it is recommended that a comprehensive Cultural Resource
Management Plan be developed in consultation with the Provincial Archaeology Office (PAO) to allow
Interpretalle Suminay and Teco,n,nendations • October 24, 2001 Page 41
for careful and rapid response to impacts on known and potential historic resources. The plan shouldinclude measures for cultural resource management during the construction phase and also include
measures for long-term management of historic resources which may be directly or indirectly impactedby the development.
5.2.2 Ongoing Monitoring Downstream of Gull JisEand Dam
One element of cultural resource management which can already be anticipated is the Iong-tenn
monitoring of historic resources which lie downstream from the Gull Island darn, and which may not
need immediate mitigative measures, but which may be impacted in time. Details of the level of
monitoring required await clarification of potential erosional impacts downstream from thedevelopment.
5.2.3 Monitoring of Construction of Gull Island Area Project Features
It can also be anticipated that an Environmental Protection Plan will be prepared. This Plan wouldinclude any archaeological monitoring procedures that may be required during the construction of
assorted project features in the Gull Island area.
5.3 Recommended Mitigation/Excavation Meas tires
It must be noted that all plans for mitigationlexcavation must receive prior approval from the PAO.Similarly, more specific determination of the number and identity of the sites to receive furtherinvestigation must await development of a cultural resource management plan approved by the PAO.
5.3.1 Gull Island Reservoir
A large number of sites have been recorded within the proposed reservoir area during the three years ofthe CRPP HROA. The majority of these are contemporary sites which are not registered as
archaeological sites per se, and for which no special mitigative measures are proposed. However, theproposed reservoir area does include archaeological sites of cultural and historic significance. These
sites will require mitigative measures, and given the nature of the proposed effect (complete inundation),only one mitigative measure is adequate in most instances: full-scale areal archaeological excavation.
1. It is recommended that all precontact sites within the proposed reservoir area be fully excavated.There are only seven such sites (not including Cache River 1 which has already been excavated) andall are small, so 100% excavation of precontact sites is a feasible option.
2. It is recommended that the historic HBC Winokapau Post be excavated in its entirety.
Interpretative Suininaiy and Eecaininendations - October 24, 200/ Page 42
3. It is recommended that test excavations be undertaken at 11 historic Innu sites in the reservoir area
in order to locate sites with early historic components. Pending the results of these tests, one or more
historic Innu camps should be extensively excavated.
4. Detailed surface mapping and recording should be undertaken at any historic sites which do not
prove amenable to true excavation. Within the area to be flooded, selected early contemporary sites
should be mapped as well to facilitate ethnoarchaeological comparisons within and beyond the
Project Area.
5. It is recommended that the earliest tilt ruins be test-excavated and, that pending the results of these
tests, excavations be undertaken at a small but representative sample of historic tilts.
5.3.2 Transmission Line 1
It is anticipated that selected sites along the transmission line corridor will require excavation, avoidance
or other mitigative measures. The nature and extent of mitigation efforts required in this component
cannot be determined until final route selection and field survey along the precise route.
5.3.3 Churchill River Downstream from Gull Island Dam
The extent of erosional effects downstream of the Dam should be verified by design engineers and the
potential to affect precontact sites evaluated. If the assumption is correct that erosional impacts
downstream of the proposed Gull Island dam will be most severe immediately downstream of the dam,
perhaps as far as Gull Lake outflow, excavation is advised for all precontact components in the GullLake area. There are eight such sites. Six are relatively small. One (Tshiashkunish 2) contains
extensive if sparse deposits; a second (the Kak" Site) appears to be small but yielded dense deposits. Ji
addition, careful attention must be paid to the potential for erosional effects further downstream at theimportant precontact and historic period site at Sandy Banks. Final determination of both the measuresto be taken at the Gull Lake sites, and those required at Sandy Banks, awaits clarification of the extent of
erosional impacts anticipated downstream from the dam.
Interpretative Sununaiy and Recommendations 'October 24. 2001 Page 43
6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 Persona' Communications
Loring, S., Archaeologist, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
McCaffrey, M., Archaeologist, McCord Museum, Montreal, QC.
6.2 Literature Cited
Archéotec Inc. 2000. Derivation Partielle de la Rivière Romaine Étude de Faisibilité: InterventionsArchéologiques 1999 dans le Bassin Supérieur de la Rivière Romaine. Rapport de recherches.
Report submitted to the Unite Conception des Installations et Programmes, Hydro-Québec.Montréal, QC.
Armitage, P. 1990. Land Use and Occupancy Among the Innu of Utshimassit and Sheshatshit. Reportprepared for Innu Nation, Sheshatshit and Utshimassits, Nitassinan (Québec-Labrador).
Armitage, p. 2001. Comments to Innu Nation and Labrador Hydro Project Regarding HistoricResource Assessment of the Churchill River Power Project, Draft 2, March 28, 2001.
Biggin, M.S. and A.B. Ryan. 1989. A Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey of the Kogaluk RiverArea, Labrador. Report on File, Provincial Archaeology Office, St. John's, NF.
Chevrier, D. (1977). Préhistoire de Ia region de la Moisie. Les Cahiers du Patrimoine No. 5, Ministèredes Affaires Culturelles, Québec, QC.
Cox, S.L. 1978. Palaeo-Eskimo Occupations of the North Labrador Coast. Arctic Anthropology15(2):6l-95.
Denton, D. 1989. La Période Préhistorique Récente dans Ia Region de Caniapiscau. Recherches
Amérindiennes au Québec, 19(2-3): 59-75.
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1972. Environmental Archaeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador,Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 16, Washington DC.
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1977. Indian and Eskimo/Inuit Settlement History in Labrador: An Archaeological
View. Pp: 1-4 1. In: C. Brice-Bennett (ed.) Our Footprints are Everywhere: Inuit Land Use andOccupancy in Labrador. Labrador Inuit Association, Nain.
inteipretative Suinnwiy and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 44
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1978a. Maritime Archaic Cultures of the Central and Northern Labrador Coast. Arctic
Anthropology, 15(2): 61-95.
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1978b. Winter Cove 4 and the Point Revenge Occupation of the Central Labrador
Coast. Arctic Anthropology, 15(2): 146-174.
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1986. Maritime Archaic Field Studies in Central Labrador and Notes on Northwest
Corners. Pp: 54-65. In: C. Thomson and I. Sproull Thomson (eds). Archaeology in
Newfoundland and Labrador 1985, Annual Report 6. Historic Resources Division, Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Joim's, NF.
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1994. Staffe Island I and the Northern Labrador Dorset-Thule Succession. Threads ofArctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William B. Taylor Jr. Pp: 239-268. In: D. Morrison andJ.L. Pilon (eds). Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper 149.
IEDE/JWEL (TED Enterprises in partnership with Jacques Whitford Environment Limited) 2000.
Churchill River Power Project 1998 Environmental Studies - Historic Resources Overview
Assessment, Labrador Component (LHP 98-17). Report submitted to Newfoundland andLabrador Hydro, St. Joim's, NF.
Innu Nation. 1999. hmu Land Use Occupancy Data (including LAMAP 1980). Innu Nation,Sheshatshiu, Labrador.
JWEL (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited). 2000. Sea Level History and Geomorphology of the
Churchill River and Strait of Belle Isle (LHP 98-23). Report to Newfoundland and LabradorHydro, St. John's, NE
JWELIINEN (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited and Innu Environmental) 2001a. Labrador HydroProject 1999 Enviromnental Studies - Historic Resources (Labrador) Study (LHP 99-17). Reportsubmitted to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, St. John's, NF.
JWEL/1NEN (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited and Innu Environmental) 200 lb. Labrador Hydro
Project 2000 Studies - Historic Resources Potential Mapping (LHP 00-17). Report submitted toNewfoundland and Labrador Hydro, St. John's, NE
JWEL/INEN (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited and Innu Environmental) 200 Ic. Labrador HydroProject 2000 Studies - Historic Resources Field Program (LHP 00-17). Report submitted toNewfoundland and Labrador Hydro, St. John's, NP.
Interpretative Swnina;y and Recommendations a October 24, 2001 Page 45
JWEL/MIBC/TCC 1997 (Jacques Whitford Environment LimitedlMushau Innu Band Council!Torngâsok Cultural Centre) Historic Resources Technical Data Report for the Baseline
Environmental Assessment of Voisey's Bay. Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited, St. John's,NR
Kaplan, S. 1983. Economic and Social Change in Labrador Neo-Eskimo Culture. Unpublished Ph.D
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr.
Kennedy, J. 1995. People of the Bays and Headlands. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON
Lee, T. E. (1967) The Earth Rings and Other Archaeological Sites at Fort Chirno, 1965. Report I, Pp.1-27 in Fort Chimo and Payne Lake, Ungava, Archaeology, 1965. Travaux Divers No. 16,Centre d'Etudes Nordiques, Université Lava!, Québec, QC.
Loring, S.L. 1992. Princes and Princesses of Ragged Fame: Iiinu Archaeology and Ethnohistory in
Labrador. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation on file, Department of Anthyropology, University ofMassachussetts.
Loring, S.L., M. McCaffrey, P. Arnñtage, and D. Ashini 2001. The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of aDrowned Land: Innu Nation Research Along the Former Michikamats Lake Shore. Report inprogress, to be submitted to the Provincial Archaeology Office, St. John's, NF.
MacLeod, D. 1967. 1967 Field Trip Report. Report on file, Historic Resources Division, St. John's, NF.
MacLead, D. 1968. 1968 Field Trip Report. Report on file, Historic Resources Division, St. John's, NF.
Mailhot J. 1993. Au Pays des Innus. Les Gens de Sheshatshit. Collection "Signes des Arnériques" 9,Recherches Amérindiennes au Québec, Montréal, QC.
Mai!hot, J. 1997. The People of Sheshatshit: In the Land of the Innu. ISER, St. John's, NF.
McAleese, K. 1991. The Archaeology of a Late 18th Century Sealing Post in Southern Labrador: GeorgeCartwright's Stage Cove. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, MemorialUniversity, St. John's, NF.
McAleese, K. 1992. Labrador Interior Waterways (Kanairiktok River Basin). Report on file, Provincial
Archaeology Office, St. John's, NF.
McAleese, K. 1993. Labrador Interior Waterways Preliminary Report: Kanairiktok River
Archaeological Survey. Report on file, 1-Jistoric Resources Division, St. John's.
Interpretative Swnmay and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 46
McCaffrey, M. T. 1989. Archaeology in Western Labrador. Archaeology in Newfoundland and
Labrador 1986, Annual Report 7. Pp: 72-113. Tn: C. Thomson and J. Sproull Thomson (eds).
Historic Resources Division, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NF.
McCaffrey, M. Si. Loring and W.W. Fitzhugh. 1989. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the SealLake Region, Interior Labrador. Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1986, AnnualReport 7. Pp: 114-163. In: C. Thomson and J. Sproull Thomson (eds). Historic Resources
Division, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NF.
McGhee, R. and J. Tuck 1975. An Archaic Sequence from the Strait of Belle Isle, Labrador. National
Museum of Man Mercury Series 34, Ottawa, ON.
Nagle, C. 1978. Indian Occupations of the Intermediate Period on the Central Labrador Coast. Arctic
Anthropology, 15(2): 119-145.
Pintal, J.-Y. (1998). Aux frontières de la mer: La préhistoire de Blanc-Sablon. Collection Patrirnoines,
Dossiers No. 102, Ministère de Ia Curture et des Communications, Québec, QC.
Samson, G. 1978. Preliminary Cultural Sequence and Palaeo-Environmental Reconstruction of the
Indian House Lake Region, Nouveau Québec. Arctic Anthropology, 15(2): 186-205.
Schwarz, P.A. 1997. An Historic Resources Overview Assessment of Forest Management Districts 19and 20, South-Central Labrador. Report submitted to the Cultural Heritage Division, St. John's,NF.
Schwarz, F.A. 1998. In The Eagle's Nest: Archaeological Investigations in the Mistassini Lake Area,
Upper Eagle River, South-Central Labrador. Archaeological Inventory of Akamiuapishk1'
Proposed National Park, Phase I. Report submitted to Innu Nation, Sheshatshit, and ParksCanada, Halifax, NS.
Tanner, V. 1947. Outlines of the Geography, Life and Customs of Newfoundland-Labrador Volume II.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tremblay, H. (Cd). 1977. Journal des Voyages de Louis Babel 1866-1868. Les presses de l'Universitede Québec, Montreal.
Tuck, J.A. 1981. Final Report: Lower Churchill Development Corporation Muskrat Falls GeneratingProject Archaeological Report. Report on file, Historic Resources Division, St. John's, NE.
Interpretative Summary and Recommendations • October 24, 2001 Page 47
Tuck, J.A., and R. Grenier. 1989. Red Bay, Labrador, World Whaling Capital AD 1550-1600. Atlantic
Archaeology Ltd. St. Joim's, NF.
Zirnmerly, D.W. 1975. Cain's Land Revisited: Culture Change in Central Labrador 1775-1972.Newfoundland Social and Economic Studies 16. ISER, St. John's, NF.
1nterprecziive Summary and Recom,nendaüois • October 24. 2001 Page 48