|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 15, 2009 7:06:50 GMT -6
I would think artifact is a more appropriate term than evidence. Evidence requires some determination other than mere existence. Everything found is an artifact and could be used for evidence. The .222 artifact is evidence of post battle contamination.
The 50-70 fired cartridge case found by Weibert may be consistent with Custer's personal firearm.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 15, 2009 10:32:07 GMT -6
I agree, both with the term and your reasoning. And, I don't want to overargue the point - really, I do not - but here recently we keep getting references to 'archaeology shows/proves that...' and it never goes away. It can prove nothing beyond a time relevant item was found on a date at a place, and can be utilized for any number of theories.
And again, has anyone verified the artifacts found on those two ridges in 1946? Last I recall reading, I think on the AAO board, was that those items were safely in Nebraska.
So, we know now for sure Custer had a 50-70 rifle? There was always 'confusion' about what he actually carried, with people who 'knew' confronting cases found on the field that suggested they actually did not, and everyone wanting to own or to have touched a relic he fired on "that fateful day." Has the Bulldog 'mystery' finally been resolved as well, so that history can let its breath out and someone - hard to say who - might be able to, oh, sell on Ebay a case that Custer fired on TFD?
Casting no doubt on anyone's devotion to Truth, of course, or to up value in land or items that reluctantly might go on the market someday. But nobody can say with a straight face that the artifacts found prove anything regarding how the fight went.
|
|
Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 15, 2009 13:55:54 GMT -6
Very interesting photos! But I still don't think it means the majority of artifacts are bogus, ipso facto. And yes, nitpicking about the archaeology has grown tedious. Everything about this battle is speculative, and the archaeology is no less compelling than any other theory out there.
As for the cemetery ridge photo as per Gall's account, John Stands in Timber's account also corroborates activity there...even if the skirmish line in the photo is facing the wrong way (which I think WCF's statement about lighting is a perfectly feasible explanation).
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 15, 2009 14:08:53 GMT -6
The "Bulldogs" were very likely the Webley Royal Irish Constabulary, or RIC for short. Those came out in 1868. The actual Webley Bulldog didn't appear until 1878, though perhaps the Bulldog became the go-to name for Webley pistols of similar shape and size, not unlike everyone nowadays asking for a Bandaid or a Coke. Or perhaps those that said Custer had two Bulldogs were mistaken in the model, I believe Godfrey is one who said they were Bulldogs.
But Lord Berkeley did give Custer a pair of Webley RICs in 1869. And Godfrey did say Custer was carrying two Webleys at the battle, though again, he said Bulldogs. Which would not really be possible.
|
|
lizs
Full Member
Discovering the West
Posts: 161
|
Post by lizs on Feb 15, 2009 14:58:37 GMT -6
Interesting discussion! A couple notes:
1. Please explain more on "salting." Thanks
2. Please cite sources. I think in Post 30 the reference for the archaeology findings was never given (or if I skimmed right over it, sorry!) I see later that Fox and Scott are mentioned, so was that accounting from them?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 15, 2009 15:21:04 GMT -6
You're missing the point, commanche. Nobody is saying a majority of the artifacts are bogus, because there is no way to do so after the date issue is met. The point is that there is no way of distinguishing time relevant bogus from actual, much less identify undisturbed items from that two hour period in 1876. None, absent the manufacture date. It's safe to say ammo obtained before the battle had a long shelf life, because neither the Army nor the Indians could afford otherwise. It's absurd to count every non Army related case as 'Indian' related to the battle.
This was a popular area for the Indians pre battle; it was a buffalo area with acknowledged bison crossing points. It was increasingly popular after the battle.
Somewhere on these boards are stories relating to parents making their kids drop collected cases before boarding the train/buckboard/car, whatever. If .45-55/70, that dropping point becomes a soldier's site of heroic defense. This atop the salting. Regarding which, there is also mention on these boards of which authority noted there were no longer any cartridges to pick up, and it was in the 19th century, I recall.
Like the Boston-Martin meeting appearing, accepted as fact, becoming basis for else, because it was an attractive tale, the cases on the two ridges obtained in 1946 have become proof without much question. Have they ALL been validated by manufacture? Imagine if it turns out a significant percentage are NOT. That goes away, as well. Who here knows?
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 15, 2009 17:08:02 GMT -6
Wolf Tooth's little group was fired upon very early on in the battle, and in the approximate area of said cartridges.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 15, 2009 17:51:46 GMT -6
Could well be true. Still, a story's entrance into the canon is important. One of the reasons Boston's meeting with Martin is so suspect, coupled with his RCOI testimony.
So, who here has seen the authentication of those 1946 cartridges? We wouldn't call them evidence if people hadn't verified them, would we?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 15, 2009 18:22:15 GMT -6
Interesting discussion! A couple notes: 1. Please explain more on "salting." Thanks 2. Please cite sources. I think in Post 30 the reference for the archaeology findings was never given (or if I skimmed right over it, sorry!) I see later that Fox and Scott are mentioned, so was that accounting from them? Thanks Hi Lizs The caretakers of the battlefield would place fired cartridge cases taken from nearby Ft. Custer and place them on the battlefield for visitors to find. littlebighorn.wetpaint.com/page/Early+History+of+the+Battlefield?t=anonAZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 15, 2009 18:55:57 GMT -6
Which is probably both of our points. In order for it to be evidence of Custer's rifle one would have to establish that Custer had a 50-70 that day and the reasoning why he alone would have the 50-70 commercially primed cartridges. To really make it "irrefutable" evidence one would have to recover Custer's rifle and fire a 50-70 cartridge and compare tool markings. Without the actual rifle but with proof of the rifle Custer carried and reasoning for the commercially primed 50-70 case it would be consistent with in my opinion.
One of Weibert's theories is that Custer was killed early and his 50-70 was captured and fired by Indians due to locations of some of the 50-70 recovery locations.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 15, 2009 20:35:58 GMT -6
www.netw.com/cowboy/_feature/feature0302.htmlAs for whether Custer really carried a Remington Rolling Block .50-70 to Little Big Horn, again I'll turn to Godfrey. I want to say Ryan also verified this, but I could be wrong. And I'm most definitely lazy, as I won't get up and walk the 50 feet to fetch my source books.
|
|
Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 15, 2009 20:51:16 GMT -6
DC - Forgive me, but your unrelenting caveats have made me a thoroughly unrelenting counterweight to your skepticism of archaeological findings on the battlefield! yeah, yeah, yeah - They aren't bogus because we don't know (and because we don't know, they are as good as bogus as per your numerous insinuations..) Plus, I love a good debate.
To liz, the quotations on post 30 were found in "They Died With Custer," (Scott, Fox, et. al) although I do not have the book handy right now, so I don't have the page numbers...I will provide when I next post.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 15, 2009 21:18:17 GMT -6
I recall reading, among other things, that Custer's weapons were .50 or .45 rifle (but! brass cases!), .45 or .44 pistols (but! British!). So, brass cases become - not only, push-pull click-click, battle related (but oddly, not Indian!) but - hushed awe, now - Custer's. We would have to know either what he carried, or that the cases are for sure his. We know neither, I guess, which conclusively verifies that they're from the battle and prove what Custer carried. Oh, and where he fired from. Because we found it on the 16" square of ground untouched by mammals since 1876. Because it was too far for people to walk. And cattle. Too far for them. And buffalo. Much too far.
Meanwhile, the verification of the 1946 cartridges, upon which so much depends, revealed what?
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 16, 2009 0:02:04 GMT -6
The Webley RICs Custer had were chambered for a .442 round. His Remington Rolling Block was chambered for a .50-70 round. Whether or not he carried them, that's the issue. Though I've pretty much accepted that he likely carried those. He seemed to love the Remington rifle, given his letter to the manufacturer. Plus, as it came from Godfrey, the info on what Custer carried, I will again say I buy it, even if he got the model of the pistols wrong. The Bulldog and the RIC would be easily confused.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 16, 2009 7:17:13 GMT -6
Weibert stated that he believes more 45-70 cases have been placed at LBH after the battle than during the battle.
You can buy a pre 1876 commercial primer cartridge for around 25 dollars.
|
|