Culturally modified trees
Did you know that there’s an official manual published by the BC government, explaining how to identify and describe culturally modified trees? (If you’re not sure what those are, see Gabriolan’s past post on the subject, Gabriola’s culturally modified trees.)
You can download the guide (as a honking big pdf of more than 38 megs, or in eight slightly more manageable chunks) at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/mr/mr091.htm, or go to the same site to find out how to get a hard copy.
When I found this I thought, I bet there’s a database somewhere. And there is. The locations, descriptions, etc. of the trees are included in the Provincial Heritage Register (.pdf).
But sadly, we can’t just go and look at a map of Gabriola and see where modified trees have been reported. As they say on the site,
Archaeological site information is sensitive as releasing this information into the public domain may result in looting and destruction of a site.
Therefore, the Archaeology Branch releases information on a
need to knowbasis…where it can be shown that distribution of the records will benefit the management or conservation of these sites.
Okay, I get that.
Filed in First Nations,Gabriola Island,history 3 Comments so far
3 Responses to “Culturally modified trees”
Gabriolan on 31 Dec 2011 at 11:05 am #
So, if I were to ask the Archaeology Branch for information regarding the location of some culturally modified trees (CMTs) on Gabriola, they would probably tell me that, on a “need to know” basis, I don’t need to know and therefore will not be told. I’m not one of the cool kids. I get that, too, and I’m all for the preservation of historic sites. (I’m aware of the damage some amateurs have inflicted upon petroglyphs, for example, even when their intentions have been honourable.)
But I do wonder how the “need to know” approach will work for the Archaeology Branch as time goes along.
If I were so inclined, I could photograph and record GPS co-ordinates for an awful lot of culturally modified trees on Gabriola. Considering the amount of bushcrashing I do, I’m guessing that I’ve found more of these trees than the professional archeologists have.
If I were to create a database of CMTs I’ve found on Gabriola, why would I submit that to the Archeology Branch? They don’t seem inclined to share their info with me. I could, if I were so inclined, publish maps showing CMT locations on Gabriola, and put that all up on a website of my own.
As it happens I’m not so inclined, and don’t publish locations of CMTs or other cool things I find in the woods. I share the concerns expressed by the Archeology Branch, and understand the reasoning behind their policy.
I’m just wondering how their approach will affect the public’s future behaviour in a “share and share alike” culture of wikis, open source data, and a variety of other user-generated content on the web.
nick on 31 Dec 2011 at 12:48 pm #
I have no problem at all with the Branch’s need-to-know policy and have found over the years that they are quite happy to share and exchange information with people they feel they can trust. I happily inform them of almost all that I find, in the expectation that one day the favour will be returned. I wish however I could say the same about the attitude of some professional archaeologists.
I can cite at least four instances from personal experience on Gabriola where archaeologists have treated “members of the public” with contempt, no other word for it. Destroying a site as part of a science-based investigation might be reluctantly allowable when the cost-benefits warrant it and First Nation consent has been obtained, but to leave the site a mess and eyesore ought not to be.
Telling old-timers who show them their finds from long ago that they are of absolutely no interest and worthless may be true in a strict academic sense, but is this the way to encourage people to take an interest in archaeology?
Conducting a rescue dig at significant expense to the land owner then failing to submit a report or failing to make the report available to “interested citizens” is contempt.
“Losing” artifacts in museums and other repositories because they have lost their “scientific” value and nobody has bothered to keep track of them thereby making them unavailable to a later generation interested in the history of where they live is close to being theft
Is it surprising with such myopic attitudes, the Nanaimo Archaeological Branch for example is threatened with disappearance because of the near-zero interest in First Nations history by the general public? Go into any bookshop these days and the “history” shelves are full of newly published books with attractive covers — what a difference from when I “did” history at school. So why is it that so few appear to have any interest in the history of the place that some of us are happy to call home?
Anon E Mouse on 31 Dec 2011 at 6:24 pm #
Sorry, I had no idea what a can of worms I was opening with this post, when my intention was mainly to let people know that manual existed, as an additional resource for those interested in CMTs.
The question of keeping the locations of the trees away from the public knowledge is a difficult one. On the one hand, I sort of feel that it’s justifiable to keep that information under wraps to try to protect artifacts because “the wrong people” might potentially damage them. On the other hand, I would like, as one of “the right people” in my own mind at least, to be able to access that information myself – not because I have a need to know, but because I have a wish to know. It’s a hard one to solve and I for one don’t have the answer. It feels paternalistic, and in this information age we’ve come to believe that it’s wrong if we can’t get at information we want. And yet, the consequences of revealing this information could be destructive. And (another) yet, anyone can find them, and post that information on the web as Gabriolan pointed out. Gah! I don’t know what to think.
I’ve had no dealings with the provincial archaeologists personally, Nick, but I would hope that those incidents you’re describing aren’t typical of their operations. You’re right, those behaviours are quite unprofessional.