appendix c - archaeological assessment report …...appendix c - archaeological assessment report...

December 15, 2005 Dec 2005 Summer Beaver Assessment Report

Appendix C - Archaeological assessment report from 200S drill programme

28

Post-impact archaeological assessment of 8 sediment samples from DeBeers Canada Exploration drilling operations in the winter of 2004-05

by

Dr. Scott Hamilton Dept of Anthropology Lakehead University Thunder Bay, Ontario

P7B 5El 807-343-8742

[email protected]

2005

Post-impact assessment report prepared for DeBeers Canada Exploration and

Nibinamik First Nation

Hamilton, 2005 DeBeers drill core archaeological examination 1

Executive Summary

As part of ongoing consultations between DeBeers Canada Exploration and various

First Nations in northern Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation established a panel of advisors

to address various technical aspects of the environmental impact of proposed mineral

exploration. Part of that discussion involved how to integrate more effective cultural

heritage impact assessment into proposed mineral exploration within the traditional

territory of Nibinamik F.N. While such consultations are apparently not required under

the Ontario Mining Act, the First Nations involved have deemed that more

comprehensive environmental assessment (including cultural heritage) is necessary, and

DeBeers Canada has taken a leadership role in facilitating expanded environmental

assessment in their exploration operations.

As consultations proceeded over the fall and early winter of 2004, it became apparent

that archaeological inspection was not possible before the proposed drilling program for

the winter of 2004-05. As these small-scale drilling operations are thought to have a

minor subsurface impact, it was proposed that an archaeological sample should be taken

from the drill core. Inspection of this sediment sample might serve to identify a presently

undocumented archaeological site, thereby indicating what, if any, mitigation might be

needed. Sediment samples were collected from eight drill locations, and shipped to the

author for water screening and inspection to determine whether they contained

archaeological materials.

No evidence of archaeological materials was noted in the fine screens,

suggesting that the drill locations did not coincide with an archaeological site.


1.0 Introduction

As part of ongoing consultations between DeBeers Canada Exploration and various

First Nations in northern Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation identified a panel of advisors

to address various technical aspects of the environmental impact of proposed mineral

exploration. Part of that discussion involved cultural heritage impact assessment, and

how best to integrate it into proposed mineral exploration within the traditional territory

of Nibinamik F.N. While such consultations are apparently not required under the

Ontario Mining Act, a more broadly-based environmental assessment (including cultural

heritage) is deemed necessary by the First Nations involved, and DeBeers has taken a

leadership role in facilitating such input into the planning of their exploration operations.

As consultations proceeded over the fall and early winter of 2004, it became apparent

that archaeological inspection was not possible before the proposed drilling program

slated for the winter of 2004-05. As these winter drilling operations are thOUght to have a

very minor subsurface impact, it was proposed that De Beers take an archaeological

sample from the upper sediment profile of each drill core (Figure I). These samples were

then inspected to determine whether they contained archaeological materials. Sediment

samples were collected from eight drill locations, and shipped to the author for water

screemng and inspection to determine whether they contained any archaeological

materials.

This report briefly summarizes the screening methodology and results, and offers an

equally brief evaluation of the localities identified for drilling. The latter exercise is

intended to mimic the normal preliminary archaeological evaluation procedure that is part

of a 4-stage Cultural Resource Management (CRM) assessment. This is intended to

facilitate ongoing discussion how best to improve future archaeological investigations.

2.0 A Mock Stage 1 evaluation of the 8 drill locations

Most applied archaeological investigations in Ontario follow a four-stage process as

outlined below.

1) Literature Review: Is an archaeological site already reported in the locality of interest? On the basis of the physical nature of the drill location, what is the probability (potential) that it might contain a presently undiscovered archaeological


site? Given the minimal level of archaeological investigation in northern Ontario, the literature review is unlikely to yield useful information. Consequently, Stage 1 assessments should supplement the 'potential statement' by collecting and considering information provided by Aboriginal Elders regarding memories of human land use in the area(s) of interest.

L..!

P-

- -

Wunnumin L.

rJ " , /

-1 /, i ...... _

I I l

1111 .....

, \

" /

/' ....

' ._;;

~Io4!1t' : I'

~ Landsdowne House

Figure 1 DeBeers overview map showing approximate locations of the 8 drill targets considered in this report. The map scale makes it difficult to confirm the specific drill targets represented by locations 5, 6 and 7. See detail maps below to illustrate each specific locality.

2) Preliminary Field Inspection: Physical inspection of the impact area to determine whether archaeological deposits are located there. This might involve surface and subsurface inspection, perhaps by means of shovel test pit transects. Such inspections are generally cursory, and designed to address whether heritage values are associated with the locality. If the proponent's proposed land use is deemed likely to impact such deposits, more comprehensive information is sought with Stage 3 research.

3) Site Assessment and Evaluation: If the stage 2 evaluation yields evidence of archaeological deposits, then a more comprehensive evaluation might be required to


determine the spatial extent, stratigraphic integrity, cultural affiliation, antiquity and other information required to develop an appropriate mitigation strategy. This usually involves more intensive shovel testing, mapping, and some trowel excavation.

4) Site Salvage: In the event that the proposed development is to proceed and the archaeological site cannot be avoided, a Stage 4 salvage may be required in order to wholly or partially excavate it. This is intended to recover a representative sample of the site prior to its destruction.

The rationale for undertaking a mock Stage I assessment is to illustrate the

archaeological logic underlying predictions why deposits might be expected (or not) in

any particular area, and to determine whether the negative results generated from the drill

holes are consistent with an ad hoc Stage I assessment. More to the point, I hope to draw

attention to the fact that Stage I assessments conducted in remote parts of northern

Ontario may have limited interpretative resolution because of the nature of available

maps. To expedite this process, the UTM coordinates provided by DeBeers were entered

as a series of waypoints into Garmin propriatory software (Mapsource Version 6) that is

loaded with the relevant Topo Canada v2 map database. These CanMap data are

remarkably detailed, and at least consistent with conventional NTS 1 :50,000 provisional

maps. Similar data resolution would be achieved by examining the drill targets within

Arcview 3.2 GIS software (using 1:50,000 NTSB data). I chose to use the Topo Canada

data as the 'foundation' level of electronic information consistent with what most

archaeological consultants might rely upon in making their Stage 1 interpretations. I do

not pretend that these evaluations are sufficiently comprehensive. If this was a real

exercise, the interpretative quality of the Stage 1 analysis could be significantly enhanced

using NOGETs surface geology maps, geomorphic thematic maps, forest stand maps, air

photos or orthophotos, etc. However, for much of northern Ontario these data are not

available, and a consultant might be forced to base hislher interpretations upon only the

available NTS maps.

2.1 Drill Locations

The eight drill targets were identified by DeBeers geological staff using UTM

coordinates (NAD '27 Canada datum) (Table 1). These drill targets are located on

regional maps in Figure 2, while the site localities are documented in Figures 3, 4 and 5.


The following discussion will proceed in two discrete parts: the mock Stage 1 review,

followed by the results of the sediment processing.

Table 1 Drill Targets of Interest (UTM NAD '27, zone 16)*

loc East North sediment description 1 WIG 0057 403257.1 5807699.9 grey mud, 55% clay, 40% silt and 5% sand

2 WIG 0058 401288.5 5804139.4 black organics with silt and C horizon clay

3 WIG 0068 401888.2 5802188.3 LFH, various clasts, 70% sand, 20% silt, 5% clay

4 WIG 0070 398974.7 5798320.8 water, clay and some silt

5 WIG 0079 359696.4 5784456.3 same as WIG 0079 (perhaps means WIG _ 0070 sh)

6 WIG 0147 319663.1 5813593.6 water, dark organics, clay and silt

7 WIG 0168 322802.9 5828736.1 water, light grey mud (clay and silt)

8 WIG 0169 429900.0 5817117.4 Water, light grey mud (clay and silt) * using coordinates and WIG codes provided by Leyla Hoosain, (DeBeers Canada ExploT'<ltion), July13/05.

Location 1 is ca. 37 km south ofNibinamik F.N. (Summer Beaver) and 42 km northwest of Landsdowne House (Neskantaga F. N.) in an upland location about 430 m removed from an un-named stream that flows south into the Pineimuta River system (Figure 3). On the available map, the drill location is on a comparatively flat and featureless plain, with a low hill located immediately to the southeast. As the nearest stream is over 400 m removed from the drill target, it is deemed to have low archaeological potential.

Location 2 is ca. 41 km south of Nibinamik and 42 km northwest of Landsdowne House along another headwater branch of the same unnamed stream system noted near Location 1 (Figure 3). This target is located on the low north shoreline of a long narrow lake that drains north. While insufficient detail of the local relief and sediments is available, the target's proximity to the lake suggests that it has moderate to high archaeological potential.

Location 3 is about 2 km south of location 2 at the outlet of a small headwater lake that drains south through an unnamed stream into Michikamog Lake (Figure 3). The drill location is positioned ca. 50 m west of the stream and ca. 90 m southwest of the lake outlet. The proximity of the drill location to the small lake and its outlet stream suggests a medium to high archaeological potentiaL

Location 4 is on an elongated ridge that is marked by the 270 m contour line (Figure 3). This ridge is about 4 km long and ca. 230 m wide, and is oriented in a northeast to southwest direction. This orientation suggests a glacial origin, perhaps 'glacial fluting'. An unnamed stream is diverted for about 6.5 km around this linear ridge. If transportation along this stream was impeded by shallow water, portage trails across the ridge near the drill target might have functioned to reduce water travel distance. The linear nature of the ridge within a low, relatively featureless (and perhaps


wetland mantled) plain might have made it attractive as a travel corridor, or as a localized microhabitat that attracted game animals. Thus, it offers a moderate archaeological potential.

Location 5 is along an unnamed tributary stream that drains north into the Pineimuta River, 79 km west of Landsdowne House and 71 km southwest of Nibinamik (Figure 5). The drill location is about 200 metres north of a minor tributary stream with no headwater lake. The low quality of local mapping does not offer any details that might suggest this location was attractive for human occupation. Hence, it is assigned low archaeological potentiaL

Location 6 is 84 km southwest of Nibinamik FN, and 16 km west of Wi gwascence Lake (Figure 4). This location is deemed to have a low archaeological potential since it is located at least 1 km from the nearest minor stream and about 3 km from the nearest major stream (Pineimuta River). The drill location is in the centre of a flat and featureless plain, with linear ridges being reported about 3 km away to the east and west.

Location 7 is within the western edge of Schryburt Lake, and appears to have been drilled through the ice and into lake bottom sediment (Figure 5). The location is approximately 77 km southwest of Nibinamik and about 44 km south of Wunnumin Lake. While this drill location has low archaeological potential, because it is drilled into the lake bed, the adjacent shorelines might have high potential because it is a large headwater lake, adjacent to a stream outlet, and is drained by a stream that flows north into Wunnumin Lake.

Location 8 is within the north bay of Michikenopik Lake, part of a chain of lakes and streams that flow northeast into Mameigwess Lake (Figure 5). The drill location is 42 km southeast of Nibinamik and 33 km northwest of Landsdowne House. This core location also appears to have been drilled through the ice and into lake bottom sediment. This drill site has low archaeological potential because of its position within the lake. The nearby shorelines exhibit considerable local relief. The lakeshore context near the drill location is deemed to have high potentiaL

2.2 Summary

The mock Stage 1 suggests that 5 of the 8 drill targets have low potential of

coinciding with archaeological deposits, while the remaining three are assigned medium

to high potential. In all of these cases, proximity to water is the primary weighting factor

used. This appeal to conventional wisdom about the importance of water systems for

human settlement is common among Boreal Forest archaeologists. This is despite the fact

that we also recognize other land use strategies, and that the landscape and hydrological

system have undergone considerable transformation since deglaciation. Obviously,


weighting archaeological site potential on the basis to proximity to late Holocene

hydrological systems has limited predictive strength when considering early and middle

Holocene land use. Building early and middle Holocene hydrological themes into the

assessment is often not possible given the limited of Quaternary geomorphic research

conducted in the region.

A second observation is that the archaeological predictions are dependent upon the

cartographic scale and information quality of the available maps, and also preconceived

notions about where archaeological sites should be expected. Given the far northern

context (and coarse resolution mapping), most 'potential weighting' exercises are flawed.

More seriously, the 'potential weighting' process is driven by our current understanding

of Subarctic land use which, in tum, is based upon a the efforts of a relatively narrow

group of researchers who have barely begun to investigate this vast region. Finally, the

assertions of archaeological potential are often based upon implicitly applied criteria,

many of which are not clearly articulated in the assessment report. As a result, there

might be little consistency and replicability between the efforts of different

archaeological consultants.

These weaknesses might be addressed by the proponent providing the

consultant with access to the best available thematic maps and air photos (large

scale), seeking input from Elders who might have direct historical insight into land

use and occupancy in the region, and by establishing criteria in project terms of

reference that require consultants to explicitly outline their assumptions and

criteria for assigning archaeological site potential.

3.0 Sediment Screening

Given the small sediment sample size (114 to 113 of a five gallon plastic bucket),

deriving from the upper portion of the drill cores (ca. 5 cm diameter), there is a very low

statistical probability that artifacts will be recovered even if they intercept archaeological

sites. This is because most readily visible artifacts in archaeological sediments range in

size diameter from .5 cm to 6 cm, with comparatively few items exceeding 10 cm. A

much higher frequency of micro-artifacts are deposited that range in size from .1 cm to .5

cm. Given the time requirements to process sediment through an archaeological screen in


the field, most archaeologists use 114 inch mesh, and excavate shovel test pits that range

from 30 to 50 cm in diameter. While the coarse screen is incapable of capturing the

abundant micro-artifacts, using fine screens significantly increases the time required to

field process each sample. This is resolved by ensuring that the sediment sample being

processed is sufficiently large to permit an acceptably high probability of capturing the

larger-sized sample fraction. For reconnaissance purposes this is deemed an acceptable

trade-off between time efficiency and data quality. That is, the whole point of the

exercise is merely to determine whether archaeological sites are buried at a specific

locality. The 114 inch screening of shovel test pits offers good statistical odds of correctly

identifying an archaeological site while maintaining a sufficient level of excavation

productivity.

Ifwe imagine that the drill core samples yield a maximum of 0.0025 square metres of

surface area, then one must ask what density of the larger-sized artifacts (per square

metre) should be reasonably required to correctly identify an archaeological site using the

drill core sample. In Boreal Forest contexts, this artifact density threshold is seldom

encountered since most sites are comparatively short-term occupations by relatively small

groups of people. An alternative strategy is so seek out the much more abundant micro

artifacts by reducing the screen size so that they might be 'captured' in the screening

process. However, since the sediments under consideration are fine silts and clays, with

high concentrations of organics within the LfH zone, this is not a particularly efficient in

terms of time or cost per sample. To address this problem we employed dual hand

screens- the top screen having a 1.1 cm mesh, while the bottom one was a .4 cm mesh

(Figure 6). The sediment was placed in the coarse top screen that was nested inside the

fine screen. The nested screeners were then immersed in water. The organics from the

LfH zone were floated off, while the fine sediments were washed through the two

screens, leaving any clasts with a sufficient diameter trapped in one screen or the other.

The screen residue was then bagged for microscopic examination.

No materials of cultural derivation were encountered (Table 2). Most of the samples

were fine silts or clays with virtually no clasts found within what appear to be water-laid

sediments (see Table 1). The exception is WIG-0068 that yielded significant amounts of

assorted gravels and portions of solid rock drill core.


Table 2 Results of sediment processing.

loc drill Target code East North screen recoveries

1 WIG-0057-05-001C 403257.1 5807699.9 2 WIG-0058-05-001 C 401288.5 5804139.4 3 WIG-0068-05-001C 401888.2 5802188.3 assorted clasts, solid drill core frags

4 WIG-0070-05-00 I C 398974.7 5798320.8 5 WIG-0079-05-00IC 359696.4 5784456.3 a few pebbles

6 WIG-0147-05-001C 319663.1 5813593.6 7 WIG-0168-05-001 C 322802.9 5828736.1 8 WIG-0169-050001C 429900.0 5817117.4 3 frags of white clam shell?

As no cultural material was encountered, these results are consistent with the

Mock Stage 1 assessment of the eight drill targets that suggested a low potential

of coinciding with archaeological deposits.

4.0 Conclusion

This post-impact assessment suggests that DeBeers' drill operations in the traditional

territory of Nibinamik F.N. did not intercept any archaeological sites. One must always

acknowledge the risk of 'false negative' results, particularly in the context of the small

sample size that was SUbjected to fine screening.

A more important outcome of this exercise is to draw attention to the need for

standardized protocols for Stage 1 and 2 research to be conducted prior to undertaking

future exploration activity.


Figure 2 Orientation maps illustrating the 8 drill targets evaluated in the winter of 2004-05. Note the spatial overlap of the two maps reflected by drill locations 1,2,3, and 4.

.. . ~ .

, It 1·· 0 '

',. ... . ~

Ii' %10

~ ,tf .

,.

: ~ .

90 ..

. }'~--, 110

1."'.

~ - of · :

t ~ }

~ ,~

Figure 3 Drill targets 1,2,3 and 4

,

.~

!. i

, , --~ -

~

.'

, .,. I

-.~ .. . . '

, -\ " ./ r

, - ,

" " ~ '~ ~ /' , '

\ loc 5

-' (,]i\ ~'

,

, I

\.,

-

-"

Figure 4 Drill locations 5 and 6.

"-. (

-....

(-- I, I' ,

I t;

..

300

"

~

. ,

-::..

...i,

--'

" , " )'

/\ '-'- '

- " , , -' .: .

/ i

I

I ,

J /

1 "--1

( )

1

-' I r - ·'i

(

Figure 5 Drill locations 7 and 8.

I -

.I .'

. - 1 (

J

\ \.

igure 6 Water screening of core sediments in a dual hand screener. A) immersing fine screen in water-fi lled wheelbarrow; B) detail of disolved clay being washed thro ugh the fine screen; C ) coarse screen conta ining unprocessed clay 'lumps ' from the core sampl e.

appendix c - archaeological assessment report …...appendix c - archaeological assessment report...

Documents