This post is a challenge to respond to, particularly since I have no  
knowledge of the heritage laws, etc.,  in BC. I know the Arch-L list may be  able to 
assist further. Consulting with archaeologists in your region is  very 
important as is developing awareness/education of archaeology.
 
Still, I have several comments/suggestions. First of all I commend you for  
searching for what is right and ethical and in your efforts to preserve the  
archaeological heritage of this site. 
 
It is my opinion that your museum should not accept the artifacts that  were 
left at the door. The main reason for not accepting them would be that the  
artifacts should belong to the landowner. This would be the case according to  
most State and Federal laws in the US and for private land ownership. If that  
holds true in BC then you should turn over the artifacts to the FHTSS on 
behalf  of The Crown. Or better yet - have the person who dug them up do this.
 
This would be an opportunity to educate the 'pothunter' about archaeology  
too - if you are able to contact this person to have them retrieve their finds  
and ask them to turn them over to the rightful owner. I know you  wanted to 
speak with this person before they went out treasure hunting, but  there still 
may be some opportunity to do this.
 
You also don't want to encourage this type of occurrence - would be another  
reason to not accept these artifacts and you need to make this known. As you  
know, even lacking the laws that prevent this type of digging it is  
none-the-less destructive, the artifacts have lost meaning since they've been  taken 
out of context. Also, most below-ground archaeological material needs to  be 
cared for when taken out of the ground (or even before). This is especially  
important for organic material. Textiles will start to disintegrate when removed  
from the matrix and exposed to a different environment.
 
You are heading in the right direction with developing guidelines/policies  
in governing the use of public information. Law or no law, the treasure hunting 
 that occurred/is occurring was/is a destructive activity and your museum  
should not support this type of activity.
 
The appeal of many ghost towns are the above ground structures and most  
ghost town enthusiasts are respectful of preserving these sites. Lacking the  
above-ground remains, what does remain of the site, below ground, is of more  
interest to the treasure hunters. But knowledgeable 'ghosttowners' do promote  
archaeological resources too and they could support your efforts.
 
You may want to reference some archaeological excavations/investigations  
from the American West that have revealed valuable information. I recall that  
there have been some interesting sites that have been excavated in the Reno and  
Carson City, Nevada regions. Archaeology can support and supplement written  
documentation and in many cases, it is  archaeology that emerges as the  sole 
record of events/activities.
 
At the very least, gravesites for Fairview should be identified and  
protected - but clearly, if not a full-scale archaeological excavation (which is  
destructive too), a professional survey is warranted to try to preserve the  
archaeological integrity of this site. If I am correct to assume that Fairview  was 
a boomtown related to mining activity - these mine shafts should be  
identified and stabilized too. Mine shafts can be very dangerous for people and  
wildlife. If a pothunter opens up a shaft - this could cause a change in airflow  
that can adversely affect the stability of adjacent shafts.
 
As a wildlife preserve - having all the holes strewn about from pothunting  
is not safe for wildlife either! Pothunters rarely refill where they've dug. 
And  their activities may otherwise be disturbing wildlife habitat. 
 
Also, some of these holes may contain artifacts and features that are  
exposed. An archaeological assessment can salvage these remains and at the very  
least, the destruction should be 'restored'.
 
The FHTSS, acting on behalf of the owner (The Crown) in  stewardship of this 
land, bears this responsibility and in light of recent  pothunting activity, 
some immediate action is warranted.
 
There is obviously a lot of interest in the site and probably a lot of  
people who have done less than adequate 'investigations' - but even they may be  
able to contribute to the preservation of the site. Enlisting their assistance  
may be a way to educate them about the use proper methods, etc., and the value 
 of for doing this. Many times, these individuals do have information that 
they  can contribute and I'm sure they would be glad to if they're assured it is 
for a  good cause.
 
Now you say that the site has, "some degree of heritage  significance for the 
community" - what I'd like to encourage you to do  is promote what 
significance that is known and never mind about the 'degree' of  significance. The site 
is significant for the community and highlight  whatever documentation you 
have to support this. And if you 'dig' deep enough  into the written records - 
even more significant details are going to emerge.  But some 'significance' is 
still unknown and is that which may only be revealed  via the archaeological 
record and/or to support the written records.
 
It is also important to document the vandalism, so if you or someone else  
can photograph the destruction - this is essential for supporting your efforts.  
And of course, any 'significant' information/interpretation of historical  
records is essential too. 
 
Back to the issue about public information - it just so happens that you  had 
prior knowledge about what the information (map) was going to be used for.  
What if the woman hadn't shared information about why she wanted the map?
 
Well because she had, you did have the opportunity to 'intervene', though  
that didn't pan out. The opportunity you had was during the phone call. Why you  
didn't is understandable because you would be expressing your opinion, and 
not  that on behalf of the museum? Perhaps you felt you would have felt more 
free to  do so in person, is my guess. You are right of course to not want to 
encourage a  destructive activity and what amounts to vandalism (whether illegal 
or not). And  it seems at odds to consider that a destructive activity 
(vandalism) could be  'legal' which leads me to believe there must be some law there 
that governs  this. But then again, enforcing it too is another issue. Still, 
your museum can  develop some guidelines so that you can properly (and 
officially) address these  situations.
 
Your museum/archives should not condone this destructive activity and the  
most important stance that can be made at this point is dealing with the  
artifacts that were left. The request for the map and the paper bag containing  
artifacts is an example that some policies/guidelines need to be considered. If  
you still have the paper bag - take some pictures of it alongside the artifacts 
 and the map even.
 
Fairview is certainly not the only ghost town in BC of this time era and I  
would wonder what has happened to others? If you haven't already, please  
research what has been done for these other sites. Even ghost towns that still  
have above-ground features/remains also have archaeological remains.  How are 
they protected?
 
Some websites for information about ghosttowns:  _www.ghosttowns.com_ 
(http://www.ghosttowns.com)  , _http://nvghosttowns.topcities.com/_ 
(http://nvghosttowns.topcities.com/)  
 
Pam
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/14/2006 5:03:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

 
We have an interesting situation  regarding the former town site of Fairview, 
 near Oliver, British Columbia. This town was prominent  between 1890 and 
1905, but eventually faded. Currently, there are no built  structures remaining 
on the site, however, there are a significant number of  remains on the 
property. The site holds more archaeological interest at this  point than anything, 
however, it has also been identified as a wildlife  preserve. Though the site 
has archaeological interest, it has been disturbed  by pot hunters. Since the 
town site was prominent between 1890 and 1905, it  does not automatically fall 
under British Columbia archaeology laws. As the  site is within a regional 
district currently without enabling legislation, the  site cannot be placed on a 
heritage register, though we are working towards  that goal. The Fairview 
Heritage Town Site Society (FHTSS) has stewardship  over the property, which is 
Crown Land, and has developed a path through  the property. The site is 
considered to have some degree of heritage  significance for the community. FTHSS does 
have a policy of no digging being  allowed on the site, but because they do 
not have ownership, they are unable  to enforce the policy. 
Recently, I was contacted by  someone requesting an older map of the town 
site so she and her husband could  do some ‘treasure hunting’ (sic). She stated 
that any goods that she found  would be given to the museum. I invited her to 
come visit me so I could have  the chance to speak with them, and advise them 
as to some of the ethics  involved, and point her in the direction she should 
go if she wished to go  ahead with investigation of the site. I told the 
archivist that I wanted to  speak with them. The couple didn’t come to the museum, 
but went to the  archives which are in a separate building. The archivist gave 
the couple the  map information, and stated that they should be contacting 
FTHSS and the  regional district. A few days later, a bag was left on the front 
step of the  museum containing a few artifacts which would be consistent with 
what would be  found at the town site, however, there was no documentation as 
to where these  items were found, nor the archaeological context. The chair of 
the FTHSS and  the regional district both stated that they did not speak with 
the  couple. 
The archivist feels that as the  archives exist to provide information, when 
information is requested, it  should be provided, though she does recognize 
there are some limits. She acted  appropriately within freedom of information 
laws, which indicate that we have  no legal recourse to deny access to 
information. Also, there is a good chance  that some of the information is available 
through other sources, such as books  available in the library. My position is 
that while we cannot deny access to  information, we can restrict access to 
information when we need to balance the  conservation of a heritage resource, 
even when no protective designation is in  place. The BC Archaeology Branch, for 
example, states the  following: 
2.  The intent of the Third Party  Access  section of the British Columbia 
Provincial Heritage Register Data Request Form  is to safeguard access to 
archaeological information and site locations,  but not to  withhold it from those 
who have a need to  know  and who have an interest in a site or sites such as: 
planners, realtors,  lawyers, landowners (private, corporate or government), 
First Nations,  academic researchers and archaeologists. 
Although most people visiting the  site will not abuse the information 
provided to them, there is a certain  percentage that will. We have raised the issue 
with the Board of Directors,  who has asked that we develop a policy for them 
to consider, not just in  relation to this site, but for all heritage 
resources within the community  that may be vulnerable to exploitation.  
So, my questions are:   
1) What do you see as the ethical  considerations in the matter? What should 
we be considering in the development  of a policy? What are our 
responsibilities relating to this issue, especially  in relation to third party interests? 
2) Does your museum and archives  have a policy regarding information ethics 
as it relates to conservation of  community heritage resources? How are these 
policies applied? Would you be  willing to share your policy with us for  
consideration? 
3) How do we balance the need to  provide information with the need to 
safeguard heritage resources? What  similar situations have you encountered? How do 
you share ethics with  people? 
Thank you in advance for your  input. 
Darryl MacKenzie BSc(CD),  MA 
Museum Director/ ODHS  Administrator 
Oliver and Disrict Heritage  Society 
Box  847,  
Oliver,  BC 
V0H1T0 
250-498-0490 

=========================================================  Important 



 
Pamela Silvestri, Volunteer Assistant Museum  Director
Northeast States Civilian Conservation Corps Museum
Shenipsit  State Forest Headquarters
166 Chestnut Hill Road
Stafford Springs,  Connecticut 06076
Telephone: (860) 684-3430
e-mail: [log in to unmask]  or
[log in to unmask]

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).