|
Post by Mike Powell on Feb 16, 2009 10:55:53 GMT -6
A few years ago I opined, in my first post, that Custer Hill, which I then called LSH until a gentleman of a certain age took me to task, was probably subject to a greater degree of archaeological disturbance than the rest of the field and therefore, blah, blah, etc. The usual eruptions began and interestingly for a reply or two some youngster defended archaeological evidence in terms suggesting that a method or two was beneath all the madness. Well, he was roundly savaged and departed post haste.
Now we're back at about the same point, so here's my question. Is there anyone out there who knows anything about the discipline in a thorough sense as would come from being schooled therein at some reputable place or, better yet, having earned a living in the profession? If so, would that person please discourse on how artifacts found at LBH might be evaluated, individually or collectively, for say date of deposit and elimination of fakery, intentional or otherwise. In short, what do you guys do? And particularly, how does something old get buried? Does stuff sink or does dirt pile up, or both, and what, if any, conditions of soil, weather or any other factors at the LBH differ from most of the rest of the world as we know it, so as to enhance or degrade an archeologist's work?
Finally, if a sucker rises to the bait could we see some forbearance from the gallery until they've laid everything out.
Oh, yeah. The next time it burns, what if anything should be attempted differently than the effort of the 1980's?
Yours,
Mike Powell
|
|
lizs
Full Member
Discovering the West
Posts: 161
|
Post by lizs on Feb 16, 2009 17:44:40 GMT -6
Thanks for the info, guys. At first when I saw the reference to "salting," I took it to mean lifting artifacts. Later reading made it much clearer and AZ Ranger's perfectly clear. Guess it was kinda marketing the ole battlefield?? lol... commanche1986, I am a stickler for quote attribution as a reporter and editor. (And I know it can be easy to miss putting in at times.) I'd ask any and all for attribution when it's missing. Mike, may I add .02 cents as someone not trained in archaeology, but having been on various Passport in Time archaeological digs, pedestrian surveys, rock art trips? I won't say much, we'll leave that for those devoted to the study. I do know finding things in situ (buried in a site) is very, very important. That means, roughly, things were buried where they lay. HOW that happens, I am anxious to hear also. I can share that last summer I was on a trip where we found bunches and groupings of points. They were likely not necessarily sites of any meaning, however, because there was a ridge above... and they were on the surface below, meaning they had likely washed down in a cloudburst rainstorm. (Other points were found on the ridge). In another instance, back in 2004, surveying the field at the Warbonnet incident (may I say incident?), our team came up with a Spanish-American war pin, presumably from homesteaders (and of course not the Cavalry artifacts from the Indian Wars we were looking for). However, it had been dug up by a gopher and sat in that dirt pile. It appeared there were dug-out homes into the dirt bank there. But hey, this came from a gopher hole. So... The digging and layers of dirt tell much. However, indeed, how does this happen at the LBH battlefield, where we are talking of merely a couple hundred years or so, as opposed to thousands and tens of thousands to form rock, dirt, etc?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 16, 2009 18:23:11 GMT -6
Unsure what we're to expect now. A flurry of posts from professional archaeologists? Like actual trained historians, they're rare in Custerland. Fox heads up an archaeology section under Anthropology at the University of South Dakota, but I don't know what he's trained as, or what his degrees are in.
We can easily look up what archaeology is and can do, from actual sources of merit, on the web.
lizs brings up the key point: in the grey area of time between crime scene investigation and traditional archaeology, what process is actually at work? It's too new for the traditional archaeological methods of level and layer placement. It's too old and contaminated for CSI and forensics. It utilizes aspects of both, but is unable to prove much of anything, because the need is for CSI specifics with inability to provide them. It's really no more than disciplined scavenging, analysis, and hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 16, 2009 19:35:49 GMT -6
If I were to build a model I would use GIS layering. One could take artifacts from various sources and overlap them on a topo map. The restriction would be the artifact must have an identified location (some would be general and other more specific) and be correct for the time period. This does not eliminate artifacts that were not part of the battle but it should show patterns that could be used in a theory. I don't see how we can have absolute fact after so much time has passed.
I suspect a person such as Gordie has read so many accounts and put them together in his notes, mind, and soon to be published book that he is applying the principle of what I would like to do. By the time Fox et al arrived there is substantially more cases removed then they found for 45-70 carbines. For instance in 1928 a man found 28 cases and it eventually was named Blummer Ridge. By 1975 500-600 cases had been found. Each finder and location should be noted as a separate GIS layer. Weibert states a total of 170 cases found on Blummer. At another location 300 cases were found.
As a resource protector we have some training on significant sites in our area. We were taught that regarding archeology location(horizontal plane such as GPS location and vertical plane such as depth from surface to artifact) and association with other artifacts is very important. Once removed it can lose some or all of its archaeological value. An arrowhead found on the surface with a location has some value but a dug up whole pot without the location has no value other than monetary.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Feb 17, 2009 0:33:49 GMT -6
Hank Weibert covered the battlefields for decades, mostly outside the boundary fences. and amassed a great collection of artifacts which he painstakingly catalogued as to source etc. Most of these were cartridge cases and bullets, but he collected and noted everything he came across.
His collection, which I was fortunate enough to see in 1960, and to while away a few hours with him, after he found me trespassing on his cattle range during my pursuit of the Scarlet Pimpernel, or Benteen's route, is catalogued in print and analyzed by his son, Don in an oversized volume entitled "Custer Cases and Cartridges. One might not agree with all of Hank's theories - which are not all expounded in this book - certainly I do not, and he knows it - but there is a wealth of information in the listings and what they tend to indicate about specific areas, that make the reading and study of this book well worthwhile. Excellent aerial photos too.
Here, from pages 240 - 305 of the above book [Lisa please note], is a summary of his collection - gross number of artifacts only -
Custer field, including Calhoun Hill - 162 Blummer Ridge - 169 Reno/Benteen Defense site and environs - 738 Water-carriers Ravine, sharpshooters' positions and environs - 416 Crow's Nest, Reno Creek, Reno retreat line, Weir Point and Cedar Coulee - 54
There are two interesting numbers I would like to specifically point out: firstly, the number of .45-70 cases - zero; and secondly, the number of post-1876 cases - also zero. It might also be interesting, for some, to note that EVERY .45-55 case was internally primed with a Benet cup anvil primer, which means that these cases would be virtually impossible to reload.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 17, 2009 0:41:28 GMT -6
For the record, Charles Windolph states Custer carried a Remington sporting rifle and two "Bulldog" pistols into the battle.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2009 7:11:04 GMT -6
In defining a cartridge case such as the .45-70 the first number refers to the diameter of the bullet (approximately) and the second the volume of black powder it will hold. In order to have the reduced carbine 55 grains of black powder in a 45-70 case a filler must be inserted. There are several methods to do that. Black powder must be compressed within the cartridge to function properly. All .45-55 cartridges have a .45-70 case. Not all .45-70 cases had a filler to reduce the capacity such as found in the .45-55.
The Springfield carbines were chambered with .45-70 cartridge case dimensions.
The problem comes upon definitions. If one refers to the case alone then .45-70 is correct no matter what powder. If you distinguish the load as manufactured then .45-55 is what the cavalry had produced to reduce recoil.
So I believe Gordie is correct when referring to the difference between loads of black powder but not all authors make that distinction.
Weibert calls them .45-70 making no distinction of actual powder capacity when fired.
Sixty-Six Years in Custer's Shadow. Henry & Don Weibert page 51
"I have found several unfired .45-70 government issued rounds..."
I believe what Gordie is saying is that Weibert found unfired .45-55 cartridge cases while Weibert is only referring to carbine chamber size to indicate it was a cavalry artifact.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2009 7:28:18 GMT -6
I have read (may be true or not) that Indians attempted to reload internally primed cases by placing a percussion cap in the bottom of case then the black powder compressed above it. Seems a risky method to me and may require several blows from a firing pin if it worked at all.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Feb 17, 2009 8:13:41 GMT -6
In case it has not been noted before (most things have, somewhere around here), ‘Bulldog’ was often just a generic term used in 19th and early 20th Century terminology to describe any pistol, or revolver, that had a shortened barrel. Some called them pocket guns. A somewhat more self-defining term.
‘Bulldog’ referenced a general style more often than a specific model. Kinda like ‘compact’ or ‘sub-compact’ today refers to a type of car available from a whole range of different manufacturers.
M
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2009 8:17:50 GMT -6
Snubby
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 17, 2009 8:47:51 GMT -6
Okay. Aside from the dissonance about the existence or not of .45/70 loads, how would Weibert distinguish between a fired .45/70 and a fired .45/55? Given it takes a serious lab today to be, mostly and not entirely, sure.
Other than the Weiberts, who has verified these items to be as claimed? Where are the items now? How was the distinction made between fired 55 and 70 loads after all these years? How would he distinguish a slug made pre-1876 from one made after? Other than being in possession of the cases, what qualifications did the Weibert's possess to analyze them?
How was he allowed to pillage federal land? If he was, and nobody arrested him, how many others could have done the same?
And again, where are, and who has verified, the 1946 collections of Nye-Cartwright and Blummer to be as claimed? If those items are just a story and nobody qualified has verified what is claimed, why are they allowed to be used as proof of action at the very narrow time band needed?
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Feb 17, 2009 10:15:47 GMT -6
"...Snubby..."
Perxactly. As you know perxactly who, would say.
A 'rod', a 'gat', a 'heater', ex cetera, ex cetera, ex cetera!
M
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Feb 17, 2009 10:20:06 GMT -6
Read the literature. Look at a map.
Weiibert did the vast majority of his collecting, if not all of it, OUTSIDE the boundaries. Backus Ridge, Blummer-Nye-Cartwright and Luce Ridges are not part of the NM. Neither are MTC, SSR, Weir or Lone Tree Ridge nor the Reno battlefield, nor the bluff ravines and edges, nor Reno Creek, nor the Crow's Nest. Not Kansas City, either.
One need not have a "modern" lab to tell the difference - the wadding used in the smaller loading leaves tell-tale marks, and trace. A trained eye, some knowledge of ammunition and a decent magnifying glass will do the trick, in most instances. It has been well-accepted, for years, in most quarters, that the troops used the lighter load. Whiz, zip, swish, zing.......
Nobody says, certainly not I, that you have to accept anything posted by others, or be drummed out of this society of whatever we are - and it is not Custerland, for me and many others who probably think the boy wonder brought it all on himself.
Just leave off with your litany, and just say "I don't believe it!" or post a number for each of your standard responses. like the old story of the prison jokes, which were so well-known by all that the cons simply called out a number to elicit a guffaw.
The numbers work for me.
Gordie
PS Where did you get the info on Joe Blummer collecting cases in 1946?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Feb 17, 2009 10:38:44 GMT -6
Bulldog:
Well, it has a short barrel, a pistol grip, a sorta magazine and you might could lock a bayonet over that front sight. Must be an assault rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 17, 2009 12:52:03 GMT -6
Harpskiddie,
1.You posted he got stuff from the Custer field (including Calhoun) and from the Reno-Benteen sites. How was he allowed to do so?
2. Apparently he had no training outside mathematics, and no information of any actual professionals having verified the claimed finds.
3. Thought I'd just read that 1946 date on this thread; maybe not. But for the point: who has verified the supposed early finds on Luce or Nye-Cartwright? Where are they now? I recall being told they were in Nebraska and unavailalble. If significant portions of either the Weigart or the claimed finds on Luce Ridge prove unrelated, virtually ALL of the common theories today are toast.
Best be able to deal with holes in a theory before the expense, actual and emotional, of a publication.
|
|