Hello Histarch. . .

Thanks for all the suggestions on CMTs so far.  I've noticed that a lot
of the comments deal with species other than birch, which is not a bad
thing--it tends to corroborate  my colleagues' and my suspicion that
little work has been done with birch trees in this arena.

In an effort to focus the comments a little, I thought I would type out
a few ideas we had for the paper.  A warning--This might get a little
long-winded.

We're approaching the problem of how to deal with bark-stripped birch
trees from a management perspective (two of us are contract
archaeologists, one is a botanist with an interest in anthropology).  As
it stands now, the paper would have four major thrusts:

1)  Determine just how much or how little information can be gleaned
from these trees (as best we can within the current theoretical
paradigms of archaeology).

2)  Define and suggest a  methodology for recording bark-stripped birch
trees in the field, so as to record all possible data from them.

3)  When birch trees have had bark stripped off, a sort of dark brown to
black scab forms over the remaining inner bark.  We the authors have
noticed that on trees with older stripping scars, that the white outer
bark begins to regenerate underneath this scab.  The scab seems to
gradually flake off as the outer bark regenerates.  We would like to
propose a method for using this phenomenon to date the stripping scar
(presuming, of course, several factors such as constant rate of
regeneration).

4)  Suggest a policy for dealing with these trees from a CRM
perspective.  We the authors are currently of the opinion that bark
stripped birch trees constitute ecofacts rather than artifacts.
Obviously, even one bark stripped tree consitutes a site, but from a
management perspective, all potential uses of a tract of land must be
considered.  If the information to be gleaned from a bark-stripped birch
tree is limited, and/or the data can be easily recorded in the field,
and there are no artifactual remains associated with the stand of trees,
I personally would contend that the stand of trees does not warrant
protection as a site.  In many parts of Interior Alaska (and, I presume,
in northwestern Canada), bark-stripped birch trees are extremely common,
almost to the point of ubiquity.  Given this, it seems unfair to deny
timber companies and homeowners seeking firewood and lumber the
opportunity to harvest these trees.

Anyway, it's food for thought.  Thanks again for your great comments!


Kris Farmen
Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
Fairbanks, Alaska