Part II Specialized Studies chapter vi New Sites and Lingering Questions at the Debert and Belmont Sites, Nova Scotia Leah Morine Rosenmeier, Scott Buchanan, Ralph Stea, and Gordon Brewster ore than forty years ago the Debert site exca- presents a model for the depositional history of the site vations signaled a new standard for interdisci- area, including two divergent scenarios for the origins of the Mplinary approaches to the investigation of late cultural materials at the sites. We believe the expanded areal Pleistocene archaeological sites. The resulting excavations extent of the complex, the nature of past excavations, and produced a record that continues to anchor northeastern the degree of site preservation place the Debert- Belmont Paleoindian sites (MacDonald 1968). The Confederacy of complex among the largest, best- documented, and most Mainland Mi’kmaq (the Confederacy) has been increasingly intact Paleoindian sites in North America. involved with the protection and management of the site The new fi nds and recent research have resolved some complex since the discovery of the Belmont I and II sites in long- standing issues, but they have also created new debates. the late 1980s (Bernard et al. 2011; Julien et al. 2008). The Understanding the relative chronologies of the numerous data reported here are the result of archaeological testing site areas and the consequent relationship among the sites associated with these protection eff orts, the development of requires not only understanding depositional contexts for the Mi’kmawey Debert Cultural Centre (MDCC), and the single occupations but tying together varied contexts (rede- passage of new provincial regulations solely dedicated to pro- posited, disturbed, glaciofl uvial, glaciolacustrine, Holocene tecting archaeological sites in the Debert and Belmont area. fl uvial) into an integrated depositional model. MacDonald’s These surveys have expanded the extent of the Hunter Road (1968) site monograph has enjoyed widespread acceptance site, identifying eight new locales within 500 m of the origi- and use across the discipline for several decades. Since the nal Debert and Belmont sites and two additional locales ap- discovery of the Belmont sites, however, questions concern- proximately one kilometer south of the complex (Buchanan ing the depositional origins of late glacial sediments and the 2007, 2008). The site complex is now more than 100 ha. relationships among the cultural materials, organics, and Equally important, geological and pedological research are stratigraphic contexts at the Debert site have intensifi ed enhancing our understanding of the sites’ relationship to (Bonnichsen and Will 1999:405–407; Bonnichsen et al. regional stratigraphy and correlating climatic chronozones 1991:17; Brewster et al. 1996:86; Davis 1991:51–53, 2011; Stea (Brewster 2006; Stea 2006, 2009a, 2009b). This chapter 2011). One of the most important of these issues is the dep- 113 114 Rosenmeier, Buchanan, Stea, and Brewster ositional origin of the unstructured and laminated sands, times (Borns 1965). Charcoal samples produced thirteen ra- what we call the cover sands. The unit we identify as the diocarbon dates with solid associations to these presumed cover sands includes poorly sorted massive sand, (fi nely) cultural features—bracketing the millennia now largely laminated sands, (thickly) stratifi ed sands, cryptically bed- defi ned by the Younger Dryas cooling event (Mayle et al. ded sand, and pedogenically altered (including bioturba- 1993; Mott, Grant, Stea, and Occhietti 1986). Despite some tion) sand facies. Sites are encountered regularly within questions about the context of these dates (Bonnichsen this full range of depositional contexts of the cover sands. and Will 1999:405–407; Bonnichsen et al. 1991:17; Brew- Artifacts have now been found within the strata identifi ed ster et al. 1996:86; Davis 1991:51–53, 2011; Stea 2011), they by MacDonald (1968:6) as the structured / laminated sands. remain the largest number of widely accepted radiocarbon Additionally signifi cant are the spatial integrity of cultural dates of this age in Canada and the northeastern United materials, organics, and their stratigraphic contexts and the States (Curran 1999; Ellis 2004:242–243; Robinson et al. confl icts between the radiocarbon dates from the Debert 2009:424). Further, although we understand that many site and regional paleoenvironmental and chronological people, over many years, have averaged the Debert dates, data. In this chapter we present a new depositional model we do not see any reason for this. Indeed Debert is of- for the cover sands and develop two scenarios that account ten singled out as the only solidly dated late glacial site in for the points of agreement and disagreement among us the Far Northeast (fi gure 6.1, table 6.1) (e.g., Newby et al. on the spatial integrity of the sites and confl icts in dating. DEBERT BELMONT: A REMARKABLE SITE COMPLEX Revealing one of the largest Paleoindian sites in North America at the time, the Debert excavations identifi ed nu- merous loci with large quantities of varied diagnostic tools and debitage and multiple hearth and pit features. The tool assemblage is one of the largest in eastern North America, with more than 4,600 formal tools and 23,000 pieces of debitage, including 140 fl uted points (Ellis 2004; MacDon- ald 1968; Robinson et al. 2009:428). The broad range of formal tools represents a full suite of domestic, manufac- turing, resource procurement, and processing activities as- sociated with a combined site area in excess of 19,000 m. The publication of MacDonald’s (1968) site monograph and related articles (Borns 1966; Byers 1966; MacDonald 1966; Stuckenrath 1966) established Debert as a hallmark of interdisciplinary research in the region. The legacy of the site has provided crucial baseline data for a wide range of subsequent research investigating the nature and extent of settlement and social aggregation (e.g., Dincauze 1993; Robinson et al. 2009), lithic analyses (e.g., Ellis 2004), 6.1. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for features from the Debert comparative site analyses (e.g., Davis 1991), and correlating site after MacDonald (1968: 24–27, 54–56) in table form and shown as a plot. Tabular dates calibrated using CALIB version paleoenvironmental records (e.g., Newby et al. 2005). 6.0.1, calibration dataset intca109.14C; plot using atmospheric Climatologically, the work advanced the understanding data from Reimer et al (2004), OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey of late Pleistocene climate change in the Canadian Mari- (2005), cub r:4, sd:12 prob usp(chron). New Sites and Lingering Questions at the Debert and Belmont Sites 115 Table .. Dates for Features from the Debert Site Feature Section Sample Number Date C BP Calibrated Age cal BP (2σ) 4 A P743 10,466 ± 128 11,972–12,638 7A D P739 10,656 ± 134 12,135–12,848 7 D P741 10,545 ± 126 12,063–12,677 7 D P967 10,641 ± 244 11,760–13,099 7 D P966 10,572 ± 121 12,093–12,690 11 F P970 10,518 ± 120 12,056–12,651 11 F P970A 10,467 ± 118 11,998–12,617 11 F P971 10,773 ± 226 12,061–13,153 17 F P975 11,026 ± 225 12,549–13,348 12 G P972 10,511 ± 120 12,049–12,647 19 H P977 10,128 ± 275 11,076–12,596 15 J P973 10,652 ± 114 12,370–12,796 16 J P974 10,837 ± 119 13,011–13,065 After MacDonald (1968:24–27, 54–56). Calibrated using CALIB version 6.0.1, calibration data set intcal09.14C. 2005:150; Spiess et al. 1998:236; although now see Robinson et al. 2009:425). The geologists and soil scientists working with MacDon- ald defi ned the depositional and environmental contexts of the Debert site, situating it chronologically and spatially more securely than most other sites had been to date (Borns 1966; Lyford 1964; Swift 1965). MacDonald identifi ed three major sediment facies above the Triassic bedrock: till, lami- nated sands, and structureless sand (fi gure 6.2). The site’s stratigraphy was considered to be relatively simple, with artifacts found solely in the structureless sand facies (Mac- Donald 1968:6). MacDonald argued that the structureless sand was the “organic working of the underlying structured sands,” which were eolian in origin. He (1968:18) docu- mented the removal of surfi cial material (up to 30 cm in some cases) and demonstrated (1968:11) that there was no correla- tion between soil horizons and strata containing cultural 6.2. Schematic section of the Debert deposit: A, structural hori- materials. Current LIDAR analyses estimate that at least zons; B, soil horizons (MacDonald 1968:Figure 4). one meter of material was removed from portions of the site surface (Stea 2009b:18). This stratigraphic information is a silviculture seed orchard for operation within the lim- the foundation for subsequent discussions in this chapter. its of the Special Place beyond the known boundaries of The Debert site was designated a National Historic the Debert site. As a consequence, it was nursery staff who Site of Canada in 1972 and a Nova Scotia Special Place found the “Belmont” sites between 1989 and 1991, resulting in 1974. The boundaries of the Nova Scotia Special Place in Davis’s three seasons of selective survey, test excavations, signifi cantly exceeded the land area of the original Debert and additional geological and pedological investigations site, and as the landowner the province chose to establish (Brewster et al. 1996; Davis 1991, 1993). 116 Rosenmeier, Buchanan, Stea, and Brewster 6.3. Original fi eld profi les and plan view of the 1 m by 6 m unit excavated at the Belmont I site. 6.4. Belmont II 2 m by 6 m unit showing profi les to the level of the presumed living fl oor (photographs courtesy of Gordon Brewster).