The most difficult aspect of recording scarred trees is positively identifying them as the result of deliberate human activity. There are many natural activities which can produce similar scarring-the fall of a large branch, bush fires, poor, rocky soil at the base of the tree which affects its natural growth pattern, or insect or animal activity. Natural scarring is much more common than Indigenous scarring.
As a general rule, scars made by people removing bark tend to be regular in shape and located above ground level, and will often show axe marks or other related evidence. Natural scars are often ragged and uneven, have peaked ends, are strangely placed (i.e. they might be very high up the tree), or extend down to the ground surface. The identification of humanly scarred trees is complicated by the fact that trees continue to grow after scarring.
As the bark around the scar continues to grow, the original edges of the scar close over and are no longer clearly definable and, as the tree grows in height, the height of the scar above ground may also increase. Unfortunately, the older the scar, the greater its exposure to weathering and the harder it will be to interpret. Once a tree has been identified as humanly scarred, you then need to decide whether the scarring results from Indigenous or European activity.
In many cases, early white settlers used bark extensively for containers, shingles or roofs, and in these situations the scars may be indistinguishable from Indigenous scarring. Carved trees are much easier to recognise, since the patterns carved into the heartwood of the tree are unmistakably human.
You should record the same type and range of information for a carved tree as a scarred one, bearing in mind that carved trees were often associated with ceremonial grounds or burial sites, so there may well be other, highly sensitive, archaeological evidence in the vicinity. You should also be aware that European surveyors occasionally marked trees with a half-oval or gothic arch (a surveyor’s shield), containing a broad arrow or carved figures and letters. These are immediately recognisable, but should still be recorded.
These are some distinctive signs of scarred trees:
The shape of the scar. Among other things, Indigenous people used bark both for containers and as sheets for shelters. If a scar has a regular outline consistent with a particular known artefact type (e.g. with rounded ends in the case of canoes or containers, or squared ends in the case of shelter slabs), it is likely to be authentic (Long 1998). There are a number of natural factors which can also cause scarring, but all involve the bark being ripped instead of cut off, and all consequently result in scars with jagged and sharp ends. Such natural scars will often continue to ground level.
The height of the scar above ground level. Indigenous people are likely to have removed bark from trees at comfortable working heights. Bearing in mind that the scarring of trees by Indigenous people will probably not have occurred in many areas of Australia within the last 50 years, any tree with a scar with a height above ground of less than 1 meter is unlikely to be of Indigenous origin.
The position of the scar. In the case of canoes and containers, bark was often removed from the convex side of the trunk or branch to give suitably upturned sides to the finished artifact (Long 1998). Some deliberate human scarring removed bark from the branches of the tree, so examine all convex surfaces, not just the trunk. Because the edge of a steel axe is so sharp, the cut marks it tends to produce are typically straight, narrow and often quite deep incisions.
On the left are marks produced by a modern hand steel axe; on the right are marks produced by a nineteenth century trade axe made from wagon sprig iron and dating to the late 1800s.
The type of tree. First ask yourself whether the tree species is one which is known to have been used for bark removal, or whether the nature of the bark is comparable to known species. Not surprisingly, Indigenous people used the bark of particular kinds of trees for a reason. In eastern New South Wales, for instance, box trees and river red gums were commonly used by Indigenous people because the bark could be levered off in sufficiently large sections to be useful.
By extension, it is highly unlikely that introduced species would have been scarred by Indigenous people. The presence of axe marks. Because of regrowth around the margins of the scar, normally only upper and lower axe marks on a scar will be visible.
These will look like single or parallel lines at the top and base of the scar. Bear in mind that axe marks from stone axes are likely to be less sharp and clean than those from steel axes, because the angle at the point of a stone axe is less acute. Typical stone axe marks will look like broad, asymmetrical ‘bludgeon’ marks, with possible crushing of the underlying sapwood. Steel axes, on the other hand, will leave straight, narrow and often quite deep incisions.
Do not automatically discard the possibility of a tree being scarred by Indigenous people just because it has steel axe marks. Steel axes were highly valued by Indigenous people and were traded extensively throughout Australia long before any direct contact with Europeans. The existence of such marks therefore only dates a scar to after the initial European occupation of Sydney, rather than to the first direct incursion of Europeans into an area.
Europeans also removed bark from trees for roof shingles, or as sheets to cover a lean-to. Often they removed it by making zig-zag ‘herringbone’ cuts at the top and the bottom of the scar, which are readily identifiable. However, you need to be aware that in some areas Indigenous people produced similar ‘herringbone’ patterning when removing bark for roofing material. Comparing stone and steel axe marks. Stone axes typically leave broad, asymmetrical ‘bludgeon’ marks, sometimes accompanied by crushing of the underlying sapwood. Cut marks from steel axes, on the other hand, tend to be much deeper, straighter and narrower.