1988 Field Report
(Part 4)
by
Jean-Luc Pilon
NOGAP Archaeologist
Canadian Museum of Civilization

Site Name: The Thunder River Site
Borden No: MiTi-1

MiTi-1 was discovered by J.V.F. Millar and W.C. Noble in 1973 at the mouth of the Thunder River (Millar and Fedirchuk 1975:239). This locality was subsequently revisited by one of Millar's crews working within the context of the Mackenzie Valley Archaeological Survey. In all, the combined collection included more than 600 pieces of debitage along with unifaces, bifaces, scrapers and cores. Unfortunately, the collection was never deposited in the prescribed repository, and the only available information is contained in a brief 1975 description of the site and two artifact plates (Millar and Fedirchuk 1975:239-241). Although revisited by C. Hanks in 1982 (Hanks 1984) no additional materials were collected from the site.

In 1986 a major forest fire engulfed a very large area between the Travaillant and Thunder Rivers, including the mouth of the Thunder River. Ground conditions were therefore ideal to determine whether much remained of the site and assess the damage which may have resulted from the fire.

Site Description

The Thunder River valley consists of a deeply-cut, former glacial spillway. However, today the Thunder is nothing more than a tiny rivulet draining a small lake some 15 to 20 miles to the north.

At the mouth of the Thunder River, the stream is deflected against the steep eastern bluff by strong eddie currents, and a spit is formed on the west side. The spit, capped in thick, unctuous Mackenzie River silt, rises steeply to a first bench, at the back of which a cabin had been reported by Millar and Noble, as well as Hanks. The relatively level portion of this narrow terrace is perhaps some 50 m deep, at which point is again assumes a very steep grade, rising to the uppermost bench. According to Hanks' map of the site, the lower terrace is some 16 meters above the Mackenzie River. The higher bench is perhaps 10 meters higher yet.

Millar and Noble had recovered specimens from both terraces, as well as from similar lobes or spurs immediately adjacent to these in the valley. Similarly, we gathered specimens from the steep slope and the edge of the first terrace. Toward the back of the first bench there was a marked reduction in the amount of lithic detritus visible from the surface. However, as we climbed the second slope to the higher terrace, artifacts were once again noted in relative profusion.

As mentioned earlier, one of the reasons for re-visiting this locality was to assess the amount of damage which may be attributed to the forest fire of 1986 and acquire a collection for the site. It was thus quite surprising to find tall, coarse grasses and fireweed growing in relative abundance between the blackened trunks of the spruce trees which once formed a fairly thick forest cover over the two terraces. Equally unexpected were clumps of sod which had not been consumed by the flames. From all appearances, the pre-1986 sod was quite thick and I would suspect it was composed of moisture-retaining vegetation, which subsequently retarded or even inhibited the burning of the sod (this has been confirmed by Chris Hanks in a conversation in September 1988). As a result, small clumps of sod remain, although these have been blackened, and reduced somewhat in thickeness. Between these clumps the mineral soil is exposed, thus forming a dendritic pattern. Artifacts were found on the surface of the bare crevasses, and were also found protruding from the sod clumps.

Artifacts

A total of 361 artifacts were recovered from MiTi-1. This relative abundance compares well with preliminary figures of more than 600 pieces of debitage reportedly discovered by Millar and Fedirchuk in 1973 (Millar and Fedirchuk 1975:239).

Lithic debitage accounts for the overwhelming majority of the artifact total, with 297 specimens. Although we only gathered artifacts from the surface, we did attempt to completely collect lithic concentrations. It is thus very interesting to note that most of the debitage consists of quite large flakes, many of which are primary flakes removed during the reduction of blocky cores. Flakes produced during the manufacture and thinning of large bifaces were also recovered.

Two artifact categories stand out from the remaining 64 specimens; cores and bifaces. The latter consist of large tabular bifaces and biface fragments exhibiting only marginal flaking (14), and smaller, more refined bifaces whose entire surfaces are flaked (6). The degree of distinctiveness between these two types of bifaces may, quite simply, be a question of the width of the blank prior to bifacial flaking in addition to the end-product envisaged. Both types likely represent the extremes of a continuum. In all instances save one, the quality of the flaking suggests only preliminary shaping in view of producing blanks destined for further reduction and refinement.

The collection of cores and core fragments is relatively substantial and illustrates quite well the role of the raw material's characteristics in determining the manner of working this stone. Most of the 30 cores can be grouped into two types; those consisting of wide tabular pieces of siliceous argillite whose flat surfaces were the main flaking faces (12). The flaking planes are thus parallel to the natural layering within the raw material. It may be possible that some of these would eventually have become tabular bifaces such as those described above.

The second group of cores is comprised of thick but narrow and long tabular pieces whose principal flaking face is perpendicular to the bedding planes of the rock (16). Essentially these cores could only produce long, parallel-sided flakes. Many of these exhibit very deep hinge fractures midway down the flaking face, suggesting that this occurrence signaled the exhaution of such cores.

Lastly, two cores stand out somewhat from the rest in that they represent large pieces of raw material which have had flakes removed from a number of faces. In both cases, a striking platform for the major flaking face was created by removing a large flake from a narrow edge. The flakes which were subsequently removed by striking this new surface near the core edge tended to be directed down the length of the core and suggests the production of linear flakes if not blades/microblades. In both cases, flaking appears to have been halted following the removal of short hinge fractures.

A total of twenty-seven specimens have been identified as linear flakes. One particularly long, narrow and parallel-sided example was steeply retouched along its distal end and six others bear some kind of retouch or use wear. The majority of the remaining linear flakes consists of long flakes detached from the corners of blocky or tabular cores. There is thus a natural tendency for the detaching force to following the corner ridge and produce a long, parallel-sided flake. The strategy employed by producers of blades and microblades is essentially the same. With the exception of the scraper made on what might otherwise be termed a microblade, none of the linear flakes can be described as `classic' microblades or blades; i.e. none combine a punctiform striking platform with dorsal platform edge preparation, multiple, parallel dorsal flake scars producing a trapezoidal cross-section, and a relatively steep striking angle. However, such a definition does not take into account the process of microblade/blade production which would include the preparation or shaping of the core and the initial removal of primary microblades/blades, followed by the production of `classic' microblades/ blades. Eventually less than perfect examples would be produced. At this point the artisan might reshape the core or cease reduction of the core entirely.

Given the nature of the collection from MiTi-1, it is impossible to determine whether or not microblades/blades were intentionally manufactured. However, two of the cores and a number of linear flakes strongly suggest the possiblity that such activities are represented.

Discussion

Analysis of the lithic collection appears quite eloquent on a very important point, i.e. the principal reason for using the MiTi-1 locality. Reviewing the data, three technolgical elements stand out. The first is the size range of the debitage. Unlike any other site in the southwest Anderson Plain, the debitage consists of an extensive collection of quite large pieces. In addition, a very high proportion of the debitage is comprised of primary flakes produced during the initial reduction of blocky or angular cores.

A second revealing feature of the collection is the relatively high incidence of cores and their large sizes. It is conceivable that many of these could easily have been further reduced if availability of raw material was a constraint. Rather, extravagance is suggested. In fact, few cores exhibit attempts to re-orient flaking once failure (hinge fracture in many cases) occurred. Examination of the unmodified arrises and edges indicate very little if any use of beach or till-derived nodules since these angles and edges are sharp and unworn.

Lastly, the bifaces and biface fragments which we recovered all bespeak initial reduction aimed at blank production. There is no apparent refinement in the flaking patterns or the shapes produced.

The combination of these three features of the collection indicates that, although perhaps not the only activity which took place at the site, the preliminary processing of readily available lithic blocks was the most important reason for using the high benches at the mouth of the Thunder River. Furthermore, the angularity of the blocks indicates that this raw material was obtained from an outcrop rather than collected from beach gravels or till deposits.

The source of this rock is believed to be the cliff face in front of the site whose vertically is maintained by the strong currents of the Mackenzie River. We did not sample the various layers of rock during our brief visit. Such an endeavor would have required specialized climbing and safety equipment, not to mention climbing skills. However, blocks of similar raw material were observed on the beach near the base of the cliff and there is little doubt that some of these beds contain the raw material sought after in prehistoric times.

Historical Evidence

On the 24th of July, 1789, Alexander Mackenzie, while returning from his voyage of discovery to the Arctic Ocean, on the river that now bears his name, passed the mouth of a small stream where both local Indians and Esquimaux collected a flint-like stone. From his writings we cannot be certain whether he was told this account by local people or if he had observed evidence of such a use and arrived at this conclusion himself. Whatever the case, the identification of this locality could contribute to our understanding of the region's communication and trade networks at the end of the eighteenth century if not earlier.

Lamb has attempted to reconstruct Mackenzie's voyage down the Mackenzie River (Lamb 1970). For the most part I am in agreement with his determinations concerning the route travelled between the Upper and Lower Ramparts, as well as the return trip between these same points. However, there is one crucial passage in Mackenzie's journal which I would interpret differently; namely the location of his campsite of the everning of July 8, 1789. Lamb recognizes potential inaccuracies in the distances travelled as provided by Mackenzie. However, if one plots the distances and directions travelled during the day of July 8, the result is an outline of the Mackenzie River which fits remarkably well that section between approximately the mouth of Loon River, just below the Hare Indian River, and somewhere just downstream from the mouth of the Thunder River. There can be no mistaking the latter portion of the river since the last three sets of directional instructions clearly outline the major bend in the Mackenzie River which occurs in this region. Otherwise, if we followed Lamb, who places the campsite of the 8th of July above the mouth of the Thunder River (Lamb 1970:192), it would be very difficult to accomodate the directions provided by Mackenzie.

The approximate location of the campsite of the 8th of July is critical since he reoccupied that same spot on the evening of the 23rd of July, on his way back up the river (Mackenzie 1927:201). The next day, between the time they resumed their travelling at five o'clock, and ten o'clock, the following entry is made in Mackenzie's journal:

At five we continued our course, but, in a very short time, were under the necessity of applying to the aid of the line, the stream being so strong as to render all our attempts unavailing to stem it with the paddles. We passed a small river, on each side of which the natives and Esquimaux collect flint. The bank is an high, steep, and soft rock, variegated with red, green, and yellow hues. From the continual dripping of water, parts of it frequently fall and break into small stony flakes like slate, but not so hard. Among them are found pieces of Petrolium, which bears a resemblance to yellow wax, but is more friable. The English Chief informed me that rocks of a similar kind are scattered about the country at the back of the Slave Lake, where the Chepewyans collect copper.

At ten, we had an aft wind, and the men who had been engaged in towing, re-embarked (Mackenzie 1927:203).
Supporting evidence which suggests that the mouth of the Thunder River is the flint source mentioned by Mackenzie is provided by the journal of Sir John Franklin. I have compared Mackenzie's speeds and distances travelled with those provided by Franklin who descended the Mackenzie River in 1825. Of special interest in Franklin's trip was his brief stops at Fort Good Hope which, at that time, was located on the south side of the marked bend in the Mackenzie River, just about opposite the mouth of the Thunder River (Franklin 1971:23;Petitot 1889:37). In spite of the differences in the types of crafts used (Mackenzie used birch bark canoes while Franklin employed oak boats) there are a number of key similarities between the two exploits which allow us to draw corroborative inferences.

July 7 Passed through the RampartsAugust 9 Passed through the Ramparts
July 8 Camped slightly downstream from the Thunder River August 10 Arrived at Fort Good Hope (i.e. across from Thunder R.)
July 9 Camped just above the NarrowsAugust 11 Camped 2 hours above the Narrows
July 10 Passed through the Narrows August 12 Passed through the Narrows (going down)
July 21 Camped at the camp of July 9 August 21 Passed through the Narrows (coming up) (i.e. just above the Narrows)
July 23 Camped at the camp of July 8 (i.e. just below Thunder River)
July 24 Passed the flint source in a.m.		 August 23 Reached Fort Good Hope (i.e. across from Thunder R.)
July 28 Passed through the Ramparts August 28 Passed the Ramparts

In both cases, several stops were made in order to collect information, supplies or simply to rest. The lengths of the working days varied as undoubtedly did the work habits of the crews. However, it is clear that the two expeditions travelled at more or less the same speeds both on the journeys down (3 days) and on the return trips (7 days).

Thus, from the very earliest historical records, we have learnt that somewhere below the "Ramparts" was located a source of stone used by the Indians of the lower Mackenzie Valley as well as Eskimos from the Mackenzie Delta. Although not a subject of great debate, the actual location has been suggested to be somewhere between the present site of Fort Good Hope, which is located just below the "Ramparts", and the mouth of the Thunder River (Lamb 1970:191, McGhee 1970:13, Stefansson 1923:12).

I believe some of the difficulty in determining the location of the flint source stems in part from the fact that the location of Fort Good Hope has changed several times. Especially important is the location of Fort Good Hope in 1825, opposite the mouth of the Thunder River, when Franklin and Richardson travelled on the lower Mackenzie River.

Part of the problem may stem from Richardson's remark that "A small stream flows into the Mackenzie some way below Fort Good Hope, on the banks of which, according to Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the Indians and Esquimaux collect flints." (Franklin 1971:xxxvi). What was the basis for this statement: identification by local people or oral tradition among the European traders? Franklin's coordinates of 67d. 28m. 21s. N-130d. 51m. 38s. W situate the trading post at over 1 km from the Mackenzie River on the right bank or the north side of the river. There evidently was a mistake made in calculating the longitude. A similar case can be advanced for Franklin's coordinates of the mouth of the Arctic Red River: "The Red River contributes its waters to the Mackenzie at the lower part of the Narrows, in latitude 67d. 27m. N., longitude 133d. 31m. W."( Franklin 1971:26). These coordinates identify a point in the Mackenzie River at the head of the Narrows, while a reading of a modern 1:50,000 scale map provides the following coordinates: 67d. 26m. 51s. N-133d. 44m. 46s. W. It would thus seem that Franklin's ability to calculate longitude may have been hampered by the quality of his chronometer. However, if the latitude he provides for Fort Good Hope is accepted and extended to the west, the left bank is intercepted by this line in the vicinity of a small lake on the flats located slightly downstream from the mouth of the Thunder River, a more likely location for a trading post.

Toponyms Relating to the Thunder River Locality

In a 1983 article, Hanks and Winter relate that the mouth of the Thunder River was known to the Fort Good Hope people as Feetee Lu She, which translates as "stone hide scraper or flat stone, skipping on water" (1983:49). Mr. Willie Simon has indicated that he obtained the following name for the mouth of the Thunder River from a number of Arctic Red River elders: Vi Tri Tchig (personal communication, September 29, 1988). The approximate translation is Flint Creek or River. It is interesting to note that this locality is more or less at the border between the traditional territories of the Fort Good Hope Slavey speakers known as the Tehogowtene, and the Arctic Red River Loucheux speakers known as the Kwitchia Kutchin. Father Petitot provides a number of names for the Thunder River on the map published with his 1889 monograph: R. Tseindjig ou Leotaladelin ou ___-tchillé-daten ou Tonnerre.

It is thus highly significant that both people who likely exploited the stone resources at the mouth of the Thunder River recognized this important resource in the place names they used to refer to it. This is of course no great revelation, but the fact adds corroboration to the suspected importance of this quarry in prehistoric times.

This site was revisited in 1990 by Jean-Luc Pilon. In addition, David Pokotylo of the University of British Columbia conducted excavations there in 1992. His analysis as well as Jean-Luc Pilon's can be found in the section Making Sense of it all.