of damage to specific sites was not Known. Knowing the condition

()
te»

of the arcnacological resources of the Arrow Lakes was necessary

in (1) estat

cy
fe
je ‘
a)
ry"
Jue
a
04
i
ty
0)
04
} mde
Q
3
iy)
[4
5
(pD
a
re)
6
ry
@)

program for the remaining
archaeological sites in the Lakes area, and (Z}) establishing a
ram for future water resource

development projects where archaeclogical sites would be affected.

x

rehaeological investigations of the

&
©)
m
@
9
«<i
@
t
we
se)
ue
i)
«d
foto
Q
fot
0)
mo

Arrow Lakes were completely inadequate owing to poorly developed
theoretical and methodological concepts and non-existent resource .

management vcolicies. Limited funding of previous projects further

Qu

complicate

Most archaeological sites rec

ie)

raea on the Arrow Lakes

S
between 1961 and 1969 were situated, as I nave said before, in the

Ky
165)
OQ
es)
(o)
0)
(0)
ct
(e)
ct
p
wD
{3
)

valley corrido: or bodies of water. In terms of

aboriginal settlement vatterns these areas were the obvious areas

to survey but tney did not represent nor necessarily reflect the

2 2 se ~

overall settlement pattern nor the total land use pattern of

aborigin ng in these survey projects

iv)
J
‘dS
i)
se
fo
fo
AS)
ct
foe
oO
Hi
e)
t)
ry
fo
ct
=z
AY)
i)
fe!
is)
(e)
it
js

Was an extensive and systematic survey design, which considered
ali biogec-climatic zones. As Christopher Turnbull has noted,
sites excavated between 1966 and 1969, related tmore to the depth
of the reservoir than to the collection oF a complete set of

settlement pattern date" (Turnbull, 1977, ».21).