Abstract

In 1997, the majority of permits issued in British Columbia by the Archaeology Branch were for forestry-related studies. In coastal regions, especially, culturally modified trees (CMTs) are the focal point of such studies. Until relatively recently, CMTs were not considered to be 'real' archaeological resources, in the same sense as lithics, fish weirs, or petroglyphs, for example. This was primarily because it is often impossible to determine the precise date of modification of a CMT and, by extension, whether or not the CMT is protected under the Heritage Conservation Act. Without clear precedents as to how to deal with CMTs as archaeological resources, and in the absence of established standards of practice within the archaeological community, different individuals and consulting companies are dealing with CMTs in very different ways. This is creating confusion and discord among archaeologists, our forest industry clients, and the First Nations within whose traditional territories we are working.