It appears that your main offense to my post is that I criticized the illegal actions of several relic hunters while praising an individual archeologist, namely Dr. Douglas Scott. I noted that in your post on the reinternment of the Massachusetts soldiers, you praised the "heroic" relic hunters and heaped scorn on the archeologists. Just as someone who hunts illegally brings discredit to the hunting community, someone who illegally relic hunts brings discredit upon that community. I have no issues of any sort with anyone who hunts for relics as long as they obey the law and respect property rights of the land owners. The Pea Ridge battlefield would not have been preserved if it was not for Alvin Seamster, a dedicated relic hunter.

There are good archeologists and bad ones, just as there are good relic hunters and bad ones. Dr. Scott is one of the best. You praised the relic hunters who assisted on the battlefield surveys. Guess what? I was one of them. There were very few there, if any, who had anything but praise for Dr. Scott. One gent traveled from Scotland just to work with Dr. Scott and did the same during the Little Bighorn dig.

As for the questions you posed, you questioned my use of the term "most evidence". As for evidence, we have the after battle reports in the OR and the personal accounts from participants describing the battle. Next, we have the physical artifacts (artillery fragmets, fired & dropped bullets of the correct caliber, etc) that confirm the accuracy of the historical record. Does this mean that the flintlock was absolutely, 100% battle-related? No. It is possible that it is not related to the battle, that it was dropped by a hunter, or by a patrol from early Fort Smith, or by a French soldier from Arkansas Post, or by a reenactor 5 years ago. Anything is possible; but when you have 50 or 100 battle-related artifacts in a concentrated area, the most likely answer is that it is battle-related. That is why I used the term "MOST evidence" instead of "ALL evidence".

You also questioned my statement, "There is no record of the Clemmons field being used for any military purposes prior to Pea Ridge." In response to your question, no, I have not "personally read every military record of the area from the Westward Expansion until the battle". If there is evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested in seeing it. A more correct statement would have been, "There is no record of the Clemmons field being used for any military purposes prior to Pea Ridge that I have read, seen, heard of, been advised of, know of in any way shape or form or currently exists in the historical files and / or enabling legislation of the Pea Ridge Naional Military Park."

As I stated before, it appears that this is not as much of a question of documentation as it is offense due to a perceived criticism of relic hunters. I am open to honest criticism when it is warranted. As stated before, I do not have, nor ever have had, any issues with legitimate relic hunters as long as they respect both the law and the rights of property owners.