1h.Q CONCLUSTON

Very little of the archaeological record has survived 8

years inundation of the Arrow Lakes. Erosion of archaeological

sites has been extensive, but water erosion has not been the only
factor involved in the destruction of archaeological sites. Pre-

reservoir clearing activities, wind erosion, post-reservoir de-

‘velopment projects, and the activities of relic hunters have also

‘of pictographs, and the preservation. o3

been significant in the destruction cf sites. What has survived

comes to us in the

records and materials removed by archaeologists from salvage ex-

cavations conducted between 1966 and 1959, photographs and drawings

= 4

handful of archaeological

rt)

sites located above the presen

beyond possidle stylistic comparisons with the established chron-
ologies of other regions. Uniaue enc culturaliy diagnostic pieces
which have been removed from their cont
collections can only lead to postuletisn and speculation about the
past. Questions may never be énswerec if the context has under-

gone a radical transformation and tne resource Ras been destroyed.

Moreover, our present xnowlecse of Arrow Lakes prehistory

has come from excavations conducted between 1966 and 1969 on 11

archaeological site

10]
ry
rm
1
3
ay)
|
Q
14)
3
ct
199)
(WK)
re)
ry
1?
ct
Ale
{@)
o
cas)
ct
2
@
D
a)
n
J+
ct
io)
wo
3
@
wo
6]

excavated, and the total arcnacological site area for each site
excavated, varied between .C1% and i. These vercentages will

never be increased as the resource nas now been destroyed. As a

by local collectors,