More than forty years ago the Debert site excavations signaled a new standard for interdisciplinary approaches to the investigation of late Pleistocene archaeological sites. The resulting excavations produced a record that continues to anchor northeastern Paleoindian sites (MacDonald 1968). The Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq (the Confederacy) has been increasingly involved with the protection and management of the site complex since the discovery of the Belmont I and II sites in the late 1980s (Bernard et al. 2011; Julien et al. 2008). The data reported here are the result of archaeological testing associated with these protection efforts, the development of the Mi'kmawey Debert Cultural Centre (MDCC), and the passage of new provincial regulations solely dedicated to protecting archaeological sites in the Debert and Belmont area. These surveys have expanded the extent of the Hunter Road site, identifying eight new locales within 500 m of the original Debert and Belmont sites and two additional locales approximately one kilometer south of the complex (Buchanan 2007, 2008). The site complex is now more than 100 ha. Equally important, geological and pedological research are enhancing our understanding of the sites' relationship to regional stratigraphy and correlating climatic chronozones (Brewster 2006; Stea 2006, 2009a, 2009b). This chapter presents a model for the depositional history of the site area, including two divergent scenarios for the origins of the cultural materials at the sites. We believe the expanded areal extent of the complex, the nature of past excavations, and the degree of site preservation place the Debert- Belmont complex among the largest, best- documented, and most intact Paleoindian sites in North America. The new finds and recent research have resolved some long- standing issues, but they have also created new debates. Understanding the relative chronologies of the numerous site areas and the consequent relationship among the sites requires not only understanding depositional contexts for single occupations but tying together varied contexts (redeposited, disturbed, glaciofluvial, glaciolacustrine, Holocene fluvial) into an integrated depositional model. MacDonald's (1968) site monograph has enjoyed widespread acceptance and use across the discipline for several decades. Since the discovery of the Belmont sites, however, questions concerning the depositional origins of late glacial sediments and the relationships among the cultural materials, organics, and stratigraphic contexts at the Debert site have intensified (Bonnichsen and Will 1999:405-407; Bonnichsen et al. 1991:17; Brewster et al. 1996:86; Davis 1991:51-53, 2011; Stea 2011). One of the most important of these issues is the dep- ositional origin of the unstructured and laminated sands, what we call the cover sands. The unit we identify as the cover sands includes poorly sorted massive sand, (finely) laminated sands, (thickly) stratified sands, cryptically bedded sand, and pedogenically altered (including bioturbation) sand facies. Sites are encountered regularly within this full range of depositional contexts of the cover sands. Artifacts have now been found within the strata identified by MacDonald (1968:6) as the structured / laminated sands. Additionally significant are the spatial integrity of cultural materials, organics, and their stratigraphic contexts and the conflicts between the radiocarbon dates from the Debert site and regional paleoenvironmental and chronological data. In this chapter we present a new depositional model for the cover sands and develop two scenarios that account for the points of agreement and disagreement among us on the spatial integrity of the sites and conflicts in dating.