montea
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by montea on Mar 3, 2009 10:05:58 GMT -6
Is anyone aware of any study by an archaeologist, anthropologist, or other professional whereby the battlefield photos from 1877 and thereafter were examined to determine if the bones depicted therein are all from horses or if human bones are mixed in?
I didn't find a former thread that addressed this. MA
"Writers are like spiders. Each hangs onto existence from a single thread spun from his own guts."
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Mar 3, 2009 11:14:26 GMT -6
Whether it was a professional in the groups you have named, or not [it probably was], I do seem to recall that an "expert" commented that the bones in the photos he looked at appeared to be horse bones.
The question remains, however, as to which photos he examined, and whether or not photographers would have taken photos of grinning skulls and human rib-cages, were those evident [as they appear to have been in the very early years - see Bourke etc,].
Perhaps our resident expert on the early photos, if we have one, will weigh in on the topic.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 3, 2009 16:53:45 GMT -6
Brust, Pohanka, and Barnard said they were horse bones in WCF, although it would be surprising if some weren't human, especially the smaller ones. They'd only have to clear out the obviously human from photos.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 3, 2009 17:13:55 GMT -6
Curious on how much biology an archaeologist would take for a degree. All of our officers have degrees in biology.
Maybe JasW could address that.
Thanks AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 3, 2009 18:11:57 GMT -6
Maybe.
|
|
montea
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by montea on Mar 3, 2009 19:29:47 GMT -6
The question is prompted in large part by the marked discrepancy between M.V. Sheridan's report of the re-burials of all bodies "with three feet of earth mounded and packed on each and the head marked by a cedar stake," versus that of P.W. Norris's "partially unearthed bodies" . . . "not in graves, but . . . with a sprinkling or earth upon each or in groups as they fell last year." Norris was supposedly describing the field after Sheridan finished.
Suspicion of Norris's accounts borne of a motive to sell newspapers is offset by suspicion of Sheridan's by a motive to whitewash. If the photos reveal human bones, it may tend to give credence to Norris and by extension denigrate MVS's account, perhaps extending to his report that the remains of Keogh, Yates, Smith and the other officers were identified with ease and recovered.
Akers probably needs something to do with his time, like isolating each individual bone in every photo, finding its skeletal origins, and presenting findings in a year or so. Doing so could restore an eroding reputation for deep-seated psychosis. MA
"I have a heart full of waltzes, but Iām not blind to my faultses."
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 3, 2009 19:32:30 GMT -6
Most archaeological digs that expect to run into a number of bones (food or otherwise) have an osteologist on the team...if running into bones etc. is unexpected, or is infrequent, the bones in question are brought to the osteologist (I have run that errand several times, and only twice has it turned out to be human). If I remember correctly Pohanka and company did have an osteologist check the very earliest photos and there could not be a single human bone positively identified in any of them--for whatever that is worth. It could very well be that the photographers did indeed remove the more gruesome from the scene...but not likely. There wasn't the sensitivity in the 19th century as there has been since WWII regarding photographing human remains...witness the popularity of Civil War dead pictures--some of which were pretty long dead (the Wilderness & Spottsylvania photos for example). I would almost think that if there were recognizable human remains on Custer Hill (the main subject of the earliest photos) they would have been 'front and center' with such captions of "They thought they could win." or something as ironic.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Mar 3, 2009 21:24:28 GMT -6
Jas. Watson: Don't know if that is Jason or James?
So what happened to the Lost Colony of Roanoke? That's right there in your baileywick and you probably have the inside scoop.
bc
|
|
montea
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by montea on Mar 4, 2009 11:09:47 GMT -6
Thanks (I'm betting it's) James. An osteologist was the type of specialist I didn't know enough to identify correctly.
If Pohanka et al ran the traps the question is answered, and perhaps there's more assurance that the bones in the distant graves of Myles, Tom, Algernon, James and the Georges are theirs. Seems unlikely that MVS would make a long trek for the express purpose of re-burying all bodies and then do as poor a job as the (stealth) reporter described, although the latter account may capture the scene before the re-burials.
I agree with your comparison to CW photos and attitudes of the age, particularly the oft-published skeletons-on-a-litter from Cold Harbor.
As for the Roanoke Colony, isn't it pretty well established that the colonists were swept up in a tornado and deposited in Kansas, where their descendants still wander aimlessly, looking for complete names to go with rudimentary alphabetic initials? MA
"The Ancients placed the powers of peace and war in the hands of closely related gods."
|
|
|
Post by bc on Mar 4, 2009 12:17:21 GMT -6
Montea: The lost colony did come to Kansas. Then they wandered down to Texas and became the Really, Really Lost Colony. It's the only thing that kept English as the official language down there and the source of the Texas accent.
We've got tickets for the Texas game this Saturday at Lawrence. I can't decide if KU is going to beat Texas by 20 or 30 points. Which one is your prediction, 20 or 30? We went up and watched Missouri get raked over. It was about the loudest it ever gets at the fieldhouse and remain so for the whole game. Expect no less for Tejas.
bc
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 4, 2009 18:22:50 GMT -6
Jas. Watson: Don't know if that is Jason or James? So what happened to the Lost Colony of Roanoke? That's right there in your baileywick and you probably have the inside scoop. bc It's James...for Pvt. James Watson one of my favorite participants of LBH (but not my name--DC would be accusing me of impersonating him or something). It's funny you ask about the Lost Colony. We just last year had a major exhibition here on the subject in cooperation with the British Museum of London. I got to work on some of the very few artifacts actually found from the Lost Colony--which to me was a privilege. Many of the actual original John White drawings were included too. As to your question, don't know if it was a serious one or not, but there are several theories, and though none of them seem more valid than the other, the real answer is most likely one of them. It will remain a mystery for some time yet, at least until some major new find is discovered anyway. On that note, I talked to some folks who have pretty compelling evidence that the site of the colony is not where everyone thinks and that if a dig takes place not that far away, (in presently undesturbed ground) things will be found.... We'll just hope that happens before it becomes beach resort or something (actually it is NPS ground).
|
|
|
Post by bc on Mar 4, 2009 19:22:17 GMT -6
Allright JW. So where is this site on nps land? Can't be too big of a secret. Is it close to the present nps colony site or do they have some land on croatoan island or do they have some land up around Virginia Beach? I know the current theories (about 5) but if you are saying there is a place not everyone is aware of, then that sounds like a new theory. Which is?
I've served some time in the Fayetteville area and have been all over the place. It is really a nice state. Made plenty of trips down to Myrtle Beach, dove a wreck off Wilmington till a shark showed up, Kitty Hawk, etc.
By the way, do you know what the source of the state motto on all the car tags, "First in Flight" is?
bc
|
|
montea
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by montea on Mar 4, 2009 21:28:17 GMT -6
bc: I assume your inquiry about the Texas game was in regard to decibel points, and it could easily be 30, possibly 40, depending on how loud KU fans can groan.
As for the language situation here in Texas, I fall back on the wisdom of Governor "Ma" Ferguson, whose words echo through the ages, like that of so many great Texas leaders (e.g. "We'll just stay here in Fort Alamo and whip butt," and "Queen Elizabeth was neat!") when she said "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas."
Tell me why, James, Private James Watson is your favorite, other than because he had incredibly good luck with worn out horses. MA
"A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse."
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Mar 4, 2009 21:59:08 GMT -6
I'm enjoying the discussion about the Lost Colony, so please continue! They finally figured out that Jamestown is in the bottom of the river not so many years ago, so there is hope that something of the Lost Colony might be found. I wish I could have seen that exhibit, Watson. I lived in Virginia most of my life and love its history and mysteries!
I've never heard of Ma Ferguson, but she sounds like she would have made a great Florida cracker. Locally, our claim to fame is Gov. Sidney J. Catts (1917-1921) whose slogan was something like, "Floridians need only three things: Jesus Christ, Sears Roebuck, and Sidney J. Catts."
|
|
montea
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by montea on Mar 5, 2009 13:30:42 GMT -6
Diane: Where in Virginia? I'm currently having a cabin constructed on a few acres of my ancestoral home I managed to acquire in Campbell County, near Concord (which is near Lynchburg) where the clan hung out from 1730 to 1851.
And lest there be concern that this thread is ranging too far afield, let me asure you that should I find bones there, in photos or otherwise, I would conduct as much independent research as necessary to determine their links to LBH, the Lost Colony, or Sidney Catts. MA
"The nipples of Mother Hope have not run dry."
|
|