Okay. My first opinion will be that this guy was in the wrong, I think we can all agree on that, seriously. He knew where he was, what he was doing, and that he was doing it illegally. This kind of relic removal hurts us a lot more than the regular kind, because it gets in John Q. Public's eye, and we all know John Q. Public thinks if it's wrong in the paper, then it's a Federal Law until proven otherwise.
NewsMan said:
It's not the relics in the ground that's as important as where they were located. That info is what matters. Once the info is gathered, I personally could care less where the artifacts end up (I would prefer that they were public). Beyond that, related to this example, my concern is that places like earthworks, that cannot be replaced, are destroyed forever. Not sure why this is an argument if you truly believe in history.
This, though, in bold, is what I do not agree with. I am a relic hunter, won't deny it, won't lie to your face about it. As stated above, the American Civil War is one of the most documented and written over wars in recent history, to include WW1, WW2, and more recent wars.
What are we going to change by the simple location of where a bullet lies and is pointing, that may have tumbled in mid-air or rolled in the ground? God forbid it was struck by a plow and changed position in the years that the battlefields were farmed before becoming State and Federally protected areas. . .
You said above these pieces of history aren't rotting away, it's painfully obvious to me that you have never been in an overly fertilized farmers crop field, holding the crumbling remains of a button you will never hope to be able to identify because the combined effects of the fertilizer and the acid in the soil have permanently removed the face, and you don't know what it feels like to be saddened to watch that small remainder of a face crumble after you've spent hours trying to delicately trace a few lines to determine what type of button it was.
I doubt you realize how excited a relic recoverer is when he finds a bare remnant of thread hanging on the shank of a button, the lost breath if it's a piece of cloth, or a piece of leather attached to
anything, be it a knapsack j-hook, a belt adjuster, a simple rivet, or God forbid in your eyes, the end of a leather waist belt still attached to a belt plate. . .
Lest we forget, there are those of us who covet the simpler things, things made of the easiest material to degrade, yet the most abundant on earth, those relics of iron. I've never heard archaeologists cry "Foul" when the EOD destroys an artillery shell with no hope of recovery, replacement, or even putting the puzzle pieces back together. Does the archaeological community have personnel that risk life and limb to preserve those relics? I sure haven't heard of any, and that's a smaller community yet within the relic world.
You talk of earthworks in the same context as battlefields themselves, and to some extent I will agree. My rebuttal, however, would be places like the trenches at the Battle of Kinston, North Carolina, which were recently exposed and a power station placed directly on top of. Though the trenches were covered in thick woods for years, when the woods were bulldozed down, you could clearly see the remains of them. Now they will never be seen again. Where did the archaeological community step up? In stark contrast, the Visitor's Center in Kinston is a museum dedicated to the battle, and its collection is almost entirely provided by and encouraged with your named evil.
As far as I'm concerned, you've named yourself for who you are in the reddened statement above and your sudden influx of posts on this singular topic. All the archaeologists seem to want is to be paid, at a high cost no less, for information that is relatively useless for what it would be used for, then shuffle it out of the eyes of those who might otherwise become too interested for the archaeologists own good. As Jeff has said above, how much history is permanently lost from view in the basements and warehouses of museums that will almost certainly
never be seen again for several generations, as it already has?
History is done. No matter how much information you add about it, it will not change the course of human events in between the time it happened and when new information is added. May we learn from history? Yes! History as a whole, though, not as the course of an errant bullet that struck a leaf and tumbled over a ridge.
As always, this is my opinion, misguided or not, but not subject to your opinion which is misguided to me.