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?
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