Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 9, 2009 19:53:58 GMT -6
I suppose, then, that Gettysburg, Cold Harbor, or just about any American 19th century battlefield will be prone to the same fatal archaeological fallacy as at the Little Bighorn! And what about the scattered bone, horse nails, buttons, and even boot fragments found in the same areas where cases and bullets lie? Are these post-battle relics as well? Do these prove that men died here after the battle? Archaeology is not the be all end all, but its value should never be dismissed as purely deceptive. What your theory fails to grasp is that these finds are placed in a battle-related context, which validates the likelihood that many of these bullets/cases were likely expended during the battle. Humor me by reading this lengthy post, if you dare..
I don't know about ammunition being completely wiped off the battlefield; bones were never that ruthlessly collected, and I certainly don't think such minuscule items (bullets/cases) would have been, either. Granted, certain parts of the battlefield never yielded many because certain parts of the battlefield saw more hand-to-hand fighting than others. The Keogh sector would not be surprisingly devoid of bullets as opposed to Calhoun Hill; and although relic hunters took their share of the spoils, archaeologists still found remnants of skirmish lines there (two skirmish line deployments, A/B = 100 yards/ C/D = 120 yards, respectively). I believe that ammunition was removed, and certainly diminished the archaeological record - but I don't think there is ample evidence to suggest that record was thoroughly destroyed. The killing field at Fredericksburg had streets and houses built on top of it - that was a destroyed battlefield. The Little Bighorn had a few reenactments, movie productions, and park-road/cemetery/monument construction on it (and a water tower at one point?) No battlefield is immune to post-battlefield activity, but relic hunters and post-battlefield activity can not conceivably invalidate the 5,000 artifacts excavated from the battlefield (and that's just the archaeological SAMPLE that was excavated at different times at different places in the Custer Battlefield vicinity).
It is absurd to outright dismiss bullets/cases which are found on the battlefield as unreliable, especially when other artifacts validate their presence as battle-related! "Ok, we've got a body in the kitchen and Colonel Mustard with the knife....but that knife could have come from the bedroom, and the body could have been in the living room, so Colonel Mustard probably didn't commit the murder!"
AZ, the symantics of forensics are noted, but when you find longitudinally split .45/.55 cases (fired from larger caliber weapons) in the same sector as where impacted .45/.55 bullets are at on Wooden Leg Hill, it is a little more "consistent with" Indians operating in that sector, deploying not just non-regulation weaponry, but also ammunition from captured weapons onto the hill. And the same is true on the opposite side of the hill, where numerous cases (belonging more than likely to warrior firearms) are found, along with impacted government issue bullets. We also know that some of the Indian bullets fired into Custer Hill came as far away as 500, and 350 yards, from positions further NW and along Cemetery Ridge. These distances reflect that warriors fought furtively from a distance, which matches the historical record. It also indicates that they did use captured munitions against the troopers. Whatever the interpretation, I would be more inclined to go along with a battle-related interpretation before I would outright dismiss these findings as post-battle litter.
I can't deny that post-battle artifacts will inevitably skew any interpretation of what happened at the Little Bighorn. And I will agree any day that what happened on Custer Hill was not a "last stand" but a "big fall" that didn't take long to occur. And the last of the fighting, I don't believe, even occurred on the hill. But my impression of it is that people got to the hill, kept their horses long enough for them to have perished instead of being stampeded (which is why 39 dead horses are reported there) and were killed probably within minutes of one another. Colonel Gibbon, just to reference one source, does describe the bulk of these casualties on "the Southwestern slope" the hill. Why the officers, including Lt. Smith, were on the crest is a mystery - but if their coordinating a defense from the crest seems insensible, neither does it seem logical for all of the officers to have been riding in a tight knot together to the top of a hill with gunfire all around them, only for them to be felled in one big swoop at the crest. Certainly individual riders got it while they were going up the hill on horseback; but I think the reason officers may have been closer to the crest was simply to observe - not command a defense, per se. I think they were trying to ascertain the condition of Keogh's wing, since I think right-wing instability came rather suddenly and collapsed rather quickly. In the case of Lt. Smith, he was not even with his company! I think he had probably been mortally wounded or killed earlier on along Cemetery Ridge. I think the disposition of bodies along Custer Hill, regardless of marker inaccuracies, reflects the general truth that most men stayed put once they got to the hill - and so did their horses, based on the bones found there. Indians didn't stampede them, so they held onto them long enough for them to be shot by enemy gunfire or by friendly fire. I think individual men didn't have time or enough cover to maneuver on the hill once there - including the officers and right/wing survivors at the crest. I don't think they were killed mounting the hill - I think they were pinned down, first. Regardless, if some type of defensive fire hadn't originated from Custer Hill, warriors would simply have rolled right over the hill from the Keogh sector, and from the basin below Custer Hill. Something caused them to play hide and seek again, just like Calhoun Hill. Except, the troopers were pretty easy targets, even behind horses.
As for numbers...well...it is not always about the "numbers" of cases/bullets which are found, but the context in which they are found:
"Marker 2 is on the southeast side of Deep Ravine. . .The excavations uncovered cranial and mandibular fragments, a tooth, and a phalanx (finger bone). The bones are consistent with those of a single individual between the ages of twenty-five and forty. The skull had been broken at or about the time of death, probably by a massive blow to the head by a blunt object. Three trouser buttons were also found in the excavations, confirming the individual's probable identity as a soldier. Scattered around the marker were bullets from six different weapons."
"Marker 7, at the head of Deep Ravine...[yielded] twenty bone fragments, teeth, several cervical (neck) and thoracic (midback) vertebrae, a nearly complete lumbar vertebra, a sternal body (breast bone) fragment, and several unidentified fragments.. . consistent with the remains of a single individual between the ages of twenty and thirty-six years old. . .As with many of the remains on the field, the skull appears to have been crushed with a blunt instrument sometime about the time of death. One cervical vertebra is from the lower portion of the neck and the right portion of the bone is gone. It was separated from the rest of the bone by a single cut that bisected the bone. This would be expected if the trooper had been decapitated. . .with a sharp instrument like an ax or tomahawk." . .Two Colt .44 caliber pistol balls, one smashed flat on impact, were found adjacent to each other in the excavations. A Model 1873 Colt pistol bullet was close by and a .45/.55 caliber Springfield bllet was nearly in contact with a cervical vertebra."
"Paired Markers 9 and 10 are near Marker 7, also located near the head of Deep Ravine. Fragments of a skull, ribs, vertebrae, scapula, sternum, hand bones, right foot bones, both humeri, and a left radius and ulna as well as some smaller bones were found in the unit. This soldier was between thirty and forty years of age at death and was about five feet, ten inches tall. . .There are cut marks on the sternum and one of the arm bones. In the thorax was a bullet from a .44 caliber Henry. In the area of the skull was a bullet from a .45 caliber Colt revolver. An iron arrowhead was also found adjacent to the excavation. . .The single trooper represented by these two markers may have been either wounded or killed by the .44 caliber Henry bullet. When the Indians overran [this sector], one may have picked up a soldier's Colt revolver and shot this trooper in the head with it. Other Indians may have slashed his chest and arms in a form of ritual mutilation."
Granted, these are markers from the equally controversial SSL sector. But I think it proves my point, partially, at least.
Many other times, small samples yielding "dozens" of cartridges can tell us more about variety than "numbers." We know from the Greasy Grass Ridge that, in that particular sample alone, "Firearm identification analysis shows that the spent (Indian) casings came from the eight firearm types, which included at least 15 repeating rifles." Now, either the NRA in 18-- had a convention here, or maybe this had something to do with the battle? At Henryville, many cases from Henry rifles were collected representing 20 different rifles! In both of these locations, we find impacted .45/.55 rounds. The context points us more towards a battle-related scenario, and not a suicidal gun range (at least I hope!).
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 9, 2009 21:32:29 GMT -6
This is actually important. Numbers refer to your paragraphs.
1. Well, no. There is no comparison to the LBH. There were numerous literate survivors in the CW who all spoke the same language who provided numerous and immediate mutually confirming narratives that rendered the archaeology near irrelevant.
The problem is, there are multiple scenarios for the "...scattered bone, horse nails, buttons, and even boot fragments found in the same areas where cases and bullets lie...." We don't know if these are post-battle relics as well, assuming we agree the Custer part of the battle ended with the last soldier dead, and that celebration by the Sioux is post. They don't prove men died here after the battle. They don't prove anything.
"Archaeology is not the be all end all, but its value should never be dismissed as purely deceptive." I've never claimed the archaeology is deceptive and find it fascinating; I claim the presentation of it often deceptive, in the case of the LBH partially by people who don't understand what Fox and Scott actually wrote in careful sentences, and partially for those desperate to use it as fact for their own ends.
"What your theory fails to grasp is that these finds are placed in a historical context, which validates the likelihood that many of these bullets/cases were likely expended during the battle." It's not a theory; it's a statement of fact we cannot know what is claimed as known. It's somewhat unlikely I don't grasp "historical context." What I claim is my historical context includes much more evidence altering reality than yours, which calls into question whether a knowingly abbreviated or cramped 'historical context' is historical context at all, but rather a prejudicial presentation. In any case, even if ALL of the artifacts came from the battle, it proves nothing absent info who fired it at what and when. Especially with evidence the field was salted, pillaged, and fought upon again plus all else,
2. Nobody says the ammunition was completely wiped off the battlefield, only that early on people stopped finding any cartridges. I don't know what you're basing this statement upon: "bones were never that ruthlessly collected, and I certainly don't think such minuscule items (bullets/cases) would have been, either." First, people were chiseling off soeveniers from the early markers and monument from the get go. People who do that would cheerfully take whatever they could bend down and get.
There were never enough finds to prove 'skirmish lines', just not incompatable with that theory. Tell us how many of these were found prooving firing lines. Nobody claims the 'record' was totally destroyed, only that you can't say what it is a record of. As such, it is meaningless to those not given to wishful thinking.
Again, the CW is not comparable for the reasons previously given. You have no idea how many guns were on the LBH battlefield post battle, nor I, nor anyone. What anectdotal info is around suggests quite a bit.
3. "It is absurd to outright dismiss bullets/cases which are found on the battlefield as unreliable, especially when other artifacts validate their presence as battle-related!" Exclamation points don't give support, and nobody says the artifacts are themselves unreliable. Their history since the battle, if they were part of it, certainly is. As is the interpretation of their presence.
4. This was for AZ, but you are proving my point here. These are just guesses with no evidence to decrease or increase degree of belief in your findings. Anything cartridge or bullet produced before 1876 and not a soldier's or Custer's has been happily announced as an Indian weapon used in that two hour period. That's highly dubious, given how popular this site was. You do not know, nor cannot know that "some of the Indian bullets fired into Custer Hill came as far away as 500, and 350 yards, from positions further NW and along Cemetery Ridge." There's reason to believe it, sure. Further, this might, but does not definitively "....reflect that warriors fought furtively from a distance, which matches the historical record." What are you calling the historical record here? Indian accounts only?
"It also indicates that they did use captured munitions against the troopers." If fired by the Indians in that two hour period at soldiers, it would, yes. But it doesn't. "Whatever the interpretation, I would be more inclined to go along with a battle-related interpretation before I would outright dismiss these findings as post-battle litter." NObody is dismissing all the findings as post battle litter. But there is enough legitimate concern to negate blind acceptance as battle related.
5. Give the dimenisions of Custer Hill. When people think of it today, they consider only the fenced area and the monument. Not room for much else with 39 horses lying dead in there, but maybe. But how far down did Godfrey consider part of Custer Hill? Reed and Boston were found hundreds of yards downhill, if Reed was actually identified.
Regarding the officers' last position, it may be they thought obtaining the summit would allow them pause from pursuit and a defensive area fring along the ridge line, not knowing they were already surrounded, or if they did know they were surrounded, that there were few enough Sioux to charge through. If you think soldiers got boinked on the way up, it would be remarkable if the officers thought they could simply halt and 'observe', so high and vulnerable and together. And keep in mind there is little surety about the composition of these revolting, mutilated bodies on the hill, and unreasonable to expect it.
"As for numbers...well...it is not always about the "numbers" of cases/bullets which are found, but the context in which they are found...." The numbers are extremely important, as is the context. Your quotes are of burial sites, not necessarily death sites, and contain utter guess crossed upon melodramatic insertions with no evidence whatsoever. And what point does it prove? Only that these things were found, and an intepretation of death made. That's all.
I do not deny the probability that many of the items come from the hours of battle or immediately after. But the artifacts don't, and cannot, prove themselves part of it and distance themselves from many alternatives. As such, they cannot be considered as anything beyond arguable evidence.
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Feb 10, 2009 13:05:40 GMT -6
"Why, after promising support, did Custer not do it?"
The question is did he have any intention of supporting Reno? When he finally realised the size of the village he must have known that Reno would be in trouble pretty quickly. Yet instead of crossing at the ford he decided to head away from Reno. Certainly, Custers' presence, when spotted, drew warriors away from Reno, but I doubt that was Custers' intention. When he reached the ford was his intentions still offensive? Or did he realise there was no way he could support Reno and was already thinking about defence?
|
|
|
Post by conz on Feb 10, 2009 15:10:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 10, 2009 17:35:04 GMT -6
Ah. Half English, half metric. West Point. The Furlongs by Fortnight people. 30 meters is about 98 feet. For CU math majors, two yards is six feet. For FEC regulators, that's because 2x3=6
There were only 42 bodies, maybe less till we know what Godfrey considered the boundaries of LSH, or 'Custer Hill' as he called it. Being so, the proposed and ludicrously prissy circle, attested nowhere, would significantly contract anyway. So, they form a line of the 42 (this assumes the officers would presume to be on a pointlessly large perimeter) around an area whose center is about, oh, 30 cubits (OT 18") from the hill's top, apparently intentionally disdaining circling the high ground rather than falling within the assumption they couldn't get over the hill without being exposed from 360 degrees and be even more easily shot. And it would contract, pulling their dead mounts after?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 11, 2009 20:55:13 GMT -6
AZ, the symantics of forensics are noted, but when you find longitudinally split .45/.55 cases (fired from larger caliber weapons) in the same sector as where impacted .45/.55 bullets are at on Wooden Leg Hill, it is a little more "consistent with" Indians operating in that sector, deploying not just non-regulation weaponry, but also ammunition from captured weapons onto the hill. And the same is true on the opposite side of the hill, where numerous cases (belonging more than likely to warrior firearms) are found, along with impacted government issue bullets. We also know that some of the Indian bullets fired into Custer Hill came as far away as 500, and 350 yards, from positions further NW and along Cemetery Ridge. These distances reflect that warriors fought furtively from a distance, which matches the historical record. It also indicates that they did use captured munitions against the troopers. Whatever the interpretation, I would be more inclined to go along with a battle-related interpretation before I would outright dismiss these findings as post-battle litter.
No one has ever said to outright dismiss anything except those items identified as fact that they could not have been placed there during the battle. The .222 case is a good example of that type of factual finding. A .45-55 period correct case or bullet could be placed during the battle by cavalry or Indian and after the battle by Indian or later dates by trooper or civilian.
Are you saying that only during the battle the Indians fired .45-70 cases in .50-70 chambered weapons or could it occur after the battle but on the same day June 25, 1876? Consistent with does not discount that it could happen only that it does not eliminate all other possibilities.
As I all ready pointed out the weapons the Indians used during the battle remained in their hands after the battle so it is more likely the placement of cases and bullets was done by Indians alone. The cavalry fired rounds at the battleground after the battle either target parctice or reenacting or the salting of 45-70 cases for tourist to findbut I doubt to many 44 Henry we fired by the cavalry or salted.
If a person removes a firearm from a dead body and fires it in the air several times is that theory consistent with what may have been found. Another theory which may also be consistent with what was found is that the person fired it before they died.
13 ruptured .45/55 cases were found 8 of them on the Reno-Benteen defensive site. Of the 5 found on the Custer battlefield they were identified as being fired by 4 different Sharps weapons and were found with Indian-associated cartridge cases. Two of the cases were fired by the same firearm. The conclusion that 4 Indians fired 45-55 cartridges and one fired more than one round is consistent with the artifacts.
"ammunition from captured weapons onto the hill." How could you possibly know the difference between ammunition from the Rosebud battle and the LBH battle. I don't think you meant from captured weapons only did you? Saddlebags contained ammunition in large quantities.
Contamination of the battlefield would include all artifacts removed.
Of the 415 45/55 cartridge cases found only 91 were found on the Custer Battlefield (Table 12 Page 170 APOTBOTLBH) The remaining 324 cases were found at the Reno Benteen defensive site . What is interesting is that when they looked for forensic indications of failure to extract they included those found in private collections and that total was over 1600 cases. What conclusions do we want to find as fact with an additonal known 1200 removed.
91 45/55 cases for 210 men
AZ Ranger
|
|
Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 12, 2009 21:59:00 GMT -6
To DC -
Your arguments have grown increasingly diluted with sophistry. While it is the case that any attempt to understand the battle will inevitably be speculative by nature, I have merely suggested that archaeology can be used to INTERPRET the battle, as speculation will lurk in the background of any interpretation offered. As I demonstrated, there are clearly battle-related materials (bones with bullets literally lodged in them). Yes, people reportedly stopped finding souvenirs (cases and such) early on. But clearly, just as bones were overlooked by burial parties, so too it is reasonable to accept at least some evidence of the battle remained undisturbed for the better part of a century (bullets/cases). Bones were not ruthlessly collected, because weve obviously excavated fragments (in some cases entire bodies..Trooper Mike?). I'm willing to bet if we miss a body after it was buried in situ, we didn't get all of those cases laying about either. Not a scientific conclusion, but rather, a logical deduction. Noted that post-battlefield activity accounts for some of these findings, but no published historian I have read, wishful-thinking, pragmatic, or otherwise, have ever expressed the doubt you have concerning any finds made on the battlefield. Limitations of archaeological findings have been rightfully considered, but findings never automatically discarded as not proving anything because of these post-battlefield activities. By your logic, anything found archaeologically does not prove anything,. By default, archaeologists (fox, scott) have looked at cases/bullets from the perspective that they are assumed to be battle-related - the archaeologists' interpretations may vary and may not be proven via the findings (pathways, etc.) but finds made on the battlefield have not been dismissed as unrelated by default. As such, historians will selectively interpret these same findings, and cherry pick which ones should and do conform to their respective views, and for that matter, which ones are germane to the battle or not. It is indefensible to combat "you do not know THIS" ; unless the bullet sprouts little lips and talks, no one knows anything for sure. But you would have it that evidence for post-battlefield activity surpasses or, at least, contaminates battle-related activity to such a degree that nothing can confidently be used to interpret the battle. This approach assumes a find cannot be tied to the 1876 battle, even if it is discovered and may have been tied to it. Therefore, without having to concede it is battle-related or not, the item is discarded.
But from the opposite end of the spectrum, I have faith that these findings should be included, because I do not believe non-battle related items disqualify the interpretive value of the entire sample collected from the battlefield. I suggested resistance originated from the crest of Custer Hill, which is where Custer et al. were found - their presence on the crest does not necessarily mean they were killed by a lucky volley from Indian warriors, and there is indirect evidence, both according to Indian accounts and through archaeology, to suggest men fought from that location. I never sought to argue that archaeology is the be all end all; I just indicated that to completely dismiss it is no better than "blindly accepting" it.
I do not see how "observing" is any less acceptable that your "let's have the officers ride together in a cluster until they get shot together at the top of the hill" scenario. I can see how HQ and Custer would have moved to the top to watch for Keogh, now certainly obscured by a dust cloud, with a few right-wingers running towards them, before they fully realized they were in deep doo-doo. The fact that their bodies were found there suggests that things may have heated up for the left-wing pretty quickly, and perhaps, men found their individual movement restricted as right-wing instability spread to the left. I think things developed too quickly for individual men to relocate about the hill, including officers. But, that is my interpretation, which does look at historical and archaeological sources. Indians didn't just rush over Custer Hill...they were "creeping" around the soldiers, and they knew where to shoot because of the sprawled dead mounts on Custer Hill (Wooden Leg, to mention one source).
Dimensions of the hill are hard to give without allowing for some measure of debate; different sources apply different terminology for the same places. Col. Gibbon reported Mitch Bouyer in Deep Ravine, but we know he died on the divide between Cemetery and Deep Ravine. Does that mean that Gibbon was mistaken, or did he collapse the basin, drainage, and headcut into the "ravine" ? We think of the ravine proper today, but here is a similar case where historical accounts do not jive with the modern terminology. Yet, we have the sense from historical accounts that men clustered together on or about the hill we know today as Custer Hill; the markers may not reflect the numbers, but men suggest a "stand" was made there. Many mistakingly thought the "hill" (whatever that includes) was a rallying point. Whether that includes the slope or not, I don't know; but men that saw the northern end of Battle Ridge saw something that started the "last stand" myth. If it was sparse, I do not think it would have generated that sort of attention.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Feb 13, 2009 2:06:58 GMT -6
Actually, Gibbon reported the body of "a man clad in the rough garb of a scout" [not intended to be other than a close quote] on the slope leading up to Custer Hill - not IN Deep Ravine. This description more or less coincides with the location where fragments of Bouyer's skull were found and identified [but not to dc's satisfaction] during the 84/85 digs.
There is nothing terribly wrong with the theories of the archaeologists, except that they should have stuck to their own field. For example the finding of a cartridge case at Point A and another at Point B, even if proven to have been fired in the same weapon, does not allow a conclusion other than that the weapon was unloaded at both points - not that it was fired at both points, or that the flow of movement of the weapon was from A to B.
It is rather like taking the multitude of accounts, and yea verily testimony, that say " the first man killed [or the first dead man] was found on the other side of MTC, and concluding that there was action there which then drifted back toward Calhoun and Keogh and Custer Hill - without considering that if the regiment had come to the field from the north, then the "first dead man, etc" would have been either one of the two northwest of Custer Hill, or those on Custer Hill. And that would have led to completely different scenarios having been fostered and disseminated over these many years since the fights.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 13, 2009 5:37:00 GMT -6
I think the reason many seeing the battlefield days after assumed that the first body they came to was due to the distribution of the companies. The further north you go, the more jumbled the companies become. Meaning, they found Company C sergeants and men at Finley, Company L officers and men at Calhoun Hill. Around Keogh, we had mostly Company I, with a smattering of Company C (namely Sergeant Bobo). At Custer Hill, enlisted men from every company were identified. And several officers were found away from what was thought to be their company. It could be just coincidence, but it seems that might've been part of their reasoning for the northern movement of the battle.
Its not unreasonable to assume a cartridge found on the ground was there because it was fired in the close proximity of the location. It isn't known if the soldiers were in the habit of ejecting the cartridge casing immediately after firing it, when they could. But since the Springfields did not extract the casing in the same way as, say, a Winchester repeating rifle. Since it was quick and easy to eject the casing from a repeating rifle, and it chambered the next round to boot, those cases are probably more likely found where they were expended. Since the Springfields required more effort to eject and chamber the next round, namely opening which ejects the spent casing, then pulling another round, chambering it and closing the breech, it might mean soldiers under duress (which they definitely were) and not able to stay in a fixed position might fire and run to a new position before trying to reload their carbine. A warrior could do this at a dead run with a repeating rifle. A soldier would be able to eject the cartridge while moving, but I doubt many tried to load while running unless absolutely necessary.
I've read the archaeological works, and I don't think they should be completely ignored. But I don't buy into the idea that you can rule out much resistance at Custer Hill because of the lack of cartridge casings. It would be interesting to know how many people go any farther than the Calhoun Hill, let alone Custer Hill, when they visit. The draw has always been Custer, and any visits to the battlefield and collection of souvenirs would likely be on Custer's field, and very likely most interest in collection would be on Custer Hill. But who knows, no one seemed to sign the sheet when they took a souvenir, nor did they have the courtesy to let anyone know where they found what they took. But my guesses is that of all the spots on the Little Big Horn, Custer Hill was the likeliest to be picked clean first.
Not to mention Custer Hill was not left alone by the soldiers in the years following the battle. Anything at the top of the hill, where Custer and 9 or 10 others were found was modified in varying degrees, trenches dug and a monument erected, plus the cement for the parking lot/viewing area and the well-manicured grass.
And who knows if the Indians picked up empty casings. There were probably thousands on the field, and while some spoke of plenty of ammunition to be had (thus negating any need for those persons to pick up empties), did they just pick up a few and leave unfired cartridges for the next warrior? Doubtful. Once the battle was over, if I had a new-to-me Springfield carbine, and I found 35 rounds on a dead soldier, those rounds would be all mine.
At some point, the available rounds would be come scarce, and if Indians did pick up empties for reloading (or other reasons), its likely that some of the casings were picked up. Especially on Custer Hill, since it was one of the last places of resistance. In other words, it was where many Indians would be when the battle was over.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 13, 2009 6:34:54 GMT -6
I agree El Crab. There was a general order to crush cases so the Indians could not reload them.
The missing artifacts are significant and the monument area would have lots of persons visiting starting with the victorious Indians.
My position has always been that artifacts are not irrefutable evidence of what happened as Gordie pointed out with the movement of a weapon.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 13, 2009 7:25:50 GMT -6
Table 7 page 105-6 Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn
Of the 69 identified Custer battlefield Springfield identified firearms only 12 have cartridge cases found indicating more than once fired.
Of the 12
1 had 6 cases identified 1 had 4 cases identified 3 had 3 cases identified 7 had 2 cases identified
All of the Springfields belonged to the Indians at the end of the battle. If they fired them one time it could account for 57 of the 69 identified Springfield carbine fired cases found.
Does a single case indicate a position on a skirmish line, one shot fired when your horse is shot out from under you, shooting and moving, or an Indian firing the carbine taken from a dead trooper. All are consistent with a single carbine cases found.
There is a lot of missing cases I believe from this contaminated site. I think most must think there were piles of cases found for individual carbines indicating skimish lines of some time duration. Only 5 identified Springfield fired cases indicated more than 2 rounds fired and of those some are at different locations.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Feb 13, 2009 9:31:06 GMT -6
The published archaeological information has to be collated with the specifics of other inventoried finds over the years [even if those were not investigated to the same degree] - see Greene's Evidence and the Custer Enigma, and Weibert's Custer, Cases and Cartiridges for published information, and the LBHNM Collections for unpublished.
Taken together with all other evidence, these records can be used to assist in developing a scenario or theory of the fight which must satisfy the preponderance of said evidence [or be discarded]. That evidence includes NDN accounts, post-battle eyewitness accounts of body locations and conditions, corrected marker locations, early and other photographs of the field, the records of the burials and reburials, the archaeological records and other accounts of finds, and darkcloud's many and continuing caveats [which are valid, but getting boring - for me anyway].
Gordie
PS And nobody has to accept another's theory, or even have one of his own to offer, which is generally the case, else we would all be studying something else to death..........
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 13, 2009 10:33:08 GMT -6
Sounds right to me Gordie. It would be nice to have GIS layers for each of these sources and see how they overlap.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 13, 2009 10:39:04 GMT -6
harpskiddie, I absolutely agree with the skull being Boyeur's. If you thought otherwise, you've seriously misread, as Markland does when he's in a dismissive mood.
Commanche, I disagree my "...arguments have grown increasingly diluted with sophistry." They haven't changed much and in that sense haven't grown at all. They're still correct, fortunately, and far from deceptive.
If we don't know what area Godfrey referred to when saying there were 42 corpses and 39 horses, that considerably weakens theories based upon those numbers.
You take refuge in "historical" accounts without explaining what that implies over mere accounts.
"As I demonstrated, there are clearly battle-related materials (bones with bullets literally lodged in them)." Very likely.
"...it is reasonable to accept at least some evidence of the battle remained undisturbed for the better part of a century (bullets/cases)." There's no basis for that whatsoever. That's the very definition of wishful thinking, and there are believable accounts, themselves unproveable, that the field was the destination for all sorts of unofficial field trips by people over the years. The train picnics, the extensive pillaging in the MTCF area. Oh, and the fight with the Crows. Plus utterly believable desecrations by whites and reds both.
"I'm willing to bet if we miss a body after it was buried in situ, we didn't get all of those cases laying about either." True. So what?
"...no published historian I have read, wishful-thinking, pragmatic, or otherwise, have ever expressed the doubt you have concerning any finds made on the battlefield." Again, so what? And what do you mean by 'historian'? Someone trained in the study, or somebody who wrote a book? If the former, that eliminates nearly ALL Custer books, since Custerland is Area 51 for actual pro historians.
Fox and Scott were trying to advance the notion of battlefield archaeology. They didn't mention salting to the extent now known to have occured.
"By your logic, anything found archaeologically does not prove anything." That is correct, and it does not. Again, as with 'historical' accounts, "archaeologically" means nothing and reveals the need to fluff up the contention. And then you reveal why.
"By default, archaeologists (fox, scott) have looked at cases/bullets from the perspective that they are assumed to be battle-related..." No matter how meticulous the examination of something 'assumed' to come from the battle, it cannot prove anything.
"As such, historians will selectively interpret these same findings, and cherry pick which ones should and do conform to their respective views, and for that matter, which ones are germane to the battle or not." Selectively interpret and cherry pick are exactly what a real historian would NOT do, but Custer writers do a lot. A historian would reveal conflicts in interpretation and other alternatives. Being concerned with truth, and all.
"It is indefensible to combat "you do not know THIS" ; unless the bullet sprouts little lips and talks, no one knows anything for sure." Or "at all." It's just evidence as found, and can fit in any number of scenarios.
"But you would have it that evidence for post-battlefield activity surpasses or, at least, contaminates battle-related activity to such a degree that nothing can confidently be used to interpret the battle." Greatly reduces ability to confidently state anything based on what was found. You allow the items found, temporally possible in the battle, to be factored in.
I'm sure you have faith, and in many cases the faith is justified. But they cannot in any way prove diddly, and until the saltings can be severed from the actual artifacts of the battle, the entire sample is indeed, meaningless. This atop not knowing who fired what at who when.
I don't base anything on the artifacts. My only observation - I don't know and actually don't care much - is that it is odd for testimony to have officers on the top of the hill which also is referenced as a defense perimeter, when officers would not be there in an organized defense or hospital or officer's call or anything. Since officers had the better horses, would be in the lead of a mounted movement, it is most likely they summited the hill, met a blast of fire, they stopped, bunched, fought there briefly. Nothing exciting.
Indian accounts were accumulated by dubious translators and over time when they could well have heard, and in some cases clearly had heard, the story then extant. At best, no more believable than an old soldier's upholstered remarks a half century later.
It's not just differences between what geographical terms mean today and then, but between 'then' and 'then.' MTC was originally Reno Creek. It was throught the RCOI, for example.
Crab, the salting is out of the bag and in Stricken Field. You don't mention that, so just want to make sure that's known. Even so, the testimony of the officers does not indicate they thought a prolonged fight had been made, and they commented on the scarcity of cases (which, you point out rightly, could be Indian caused).
In aggregate, it's difficult to fathom how anything of the definitive can be based upon - much less uniquely inspired by - the archaelogy.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Feb 14, 2009 0:49:26 GMT -6
In "Stricken Field," does Greene go into any detail about the salting? I think that it is well-established that at least one of the Superintendents did engage in the practice; but I'm wondering if Greene provides ant details, such as where, when and how much of this was done, and where whoever did it got the expended cases.
Same question as to the "ceremonial" or other firing by troops on the field - when, where, and how many rounds expended?
Answers will save me the trouble of buying the book, so I thank you in advance.
Gordie
|
|