[MSN] Reader responds to St. Stephens theft article

[Museum Security Network Mailinglist]

Reader responds to St. Stephens theft article 


Dear Editor, 

There is an old cliche that says that there are two sides to every story.
This is true about the article," Mobile County men plead guilty to stealing
St. Stephens Artifacts" that appeared in the Thursday, Oct. 19, 2006,
Washington County section of your paper. In this letter, I will present my
side of the story. 

On Aug. 15, Doug Shaw and I were rock and fossil hunting on the Tombigbee
River and were upstream from the site mentioned in the article. Before
heading home, we decided to heed a friend's advice to look for large sharks'
teeth that are occasionally found protruding from the limestone bluffs
downstream. 

We looked along the bluffs for some distance, but found none and decided to
head home. As we headed upstream, we passed various limestone boulders,
etc..., but saw nothing of interest. As we approached the site in question,
we saw some odd looking "rocks" lying along the water's edge and decided to
investigate. 

Upon looking at these, it was apparent that they were old, hand-made bricks
in a deterio- rated state. Several were within 2-3 feet of a rock ledge
which was the edge of the river on this particular day. It was apparent that
they had been covered with water and silt when the river was up. 

While walking along the river's edge, we saw others that were scattered for
20-30 yards along the bank, maybe 10 feet or so back from the rock ledge.
Just back from the river's edge was a red clay wall. Immediately above it,
nothing was visible other than thick grass and bramble. 

Neither of us saw a brick stack as shown in one of the pictures. The only
ones that were visible were scattered between the clay wall and the river's
edge. These bricks were also mostly exposed with various amounts of soil on
them. (These we did not touch!) We discussed the source since there were no
signs anywhere designating that the property was a part of Old St. Stephens
or any other historical site and decided that the bricks were from one of
two sources: river trash or a house that had long washed away. We decided to
put three or four bricks in the boat NOT the 20-30 bricks that were pictured
in the paper. Never once did we think that these were from any type of
historical site. 

Neither did we see any obvious footprints along the bank. This fact implied
that no one had searched the riverbank for any type of historical artifacts
during the period of time that the river was low which was the majority of
the summer. If the bricks were so important to the St. Stephens Historical
Commission, someone had been derelict in the duty of collecting and
preserving these historical artifacts since the river had been at a low
level all summer. 

When Officer Tillman's boat docked beside Doug's boat, Jim Long and Officer
Tillman exited. Long immediately informed us that we were trespassing and
asked what we were doing. We tried to explain, but were rudely interrupted
by Long, who told us who he was and that he didn't appreciate people
thinking they could pick up anything along the river. 

Officer Tillman, who was very courteous, asked for the registration papers
for the boat and began an inspection of the boat. During the inspection and
subsequent taking of our names and addresses, he said more than once that be
was not going to charge us with anything, but each time ended with, "but I
am not sure about him (Long)." 

During the inspection, Officer Tillman inquired about the rocks that were in
the boat. We told him that they were Alabama agate and a few fossils we had
found and that seemed to satisfy him. It was obvious they were not bricks. 

Seeing three to four bricks in the boat and using one hand, Long then picked
up the bricks and chunked them down beside the log that was in the picture.
He reminded us that they were valuable artifacts relative to a house
somewhere up the bank, and several times told us that he was "going to
report us to the authorities." 

I can only surmise that the additional bricks shown beside the log in the
picture published in the newspaper were the other bricks that we saw
scattered along the riverbank. 

The article also stated at the time of the incident both men "signed a $500
bond and were released." At the site, we only signed a form that Tillman
filled out that we naively believed was for information only. Nothing was
said about this form being any kind of bond. On Sept. 8, 2006, three weeks
after the event, Officer Tillman and his assistant, met with Doug and me at
my house where we did sign a bond for court appearance. 

Lastly, I am a member of an archaeology society and subscribe to several
respectable archaeology journals, and Doug has been a member of more than
one archaeology society in other parts of the state. We both have a great
respect for historical and archaeological sites. To imply that we would
knowingly and intentionally disturb a known archaeological site is out of
the question. This incident has proven to be both a costly and embarrassing
situation. 

John Hendrix, 

Citronelle