Lack of Physical evidence???

[Lawtonka]

One thing that has bothered my over the years has been the claim by the professional archeaologist there were not enough shell casings to support a last stand on Custer Hill, nor the same with a fight down at the river crossing?

I do agree that at the time of the excavations, this my be the case......but......these are two places that I am sure many visitors to the battlefield picked up a lot of stuff in the years before the battlefield was protected from removing artifacts.

Not only were there the visitors,the reunions, etc. but the Indians have lived there ever since the battle. I am pretty sure that their families have collected many aritfacts that were never recorded.

The fact is, when the studies were done or are being done, this does not seem to be recognized, although it is a well know fact.

Even in early photo postcards of L.A. Huffman, there are photos of Camp and Godfrey collecting shell casings on Reno Hill.

Just a thought. No disrespect intended to the professionals. I have the utmost respect for them and have enjoyed thier books and videos.

[crzhrs]

Lawtonka:

Aracheological evidence can tell us a lot . . . but when physical evidence is removed, i.e., shell casings, it may lead to false conclusions.

The Indians probably picked up shell casing to replace the ones they used, just as well as souviner hunters over the years.

[custerstillstands]

companyc said:

One thing that has bothered my over the years has been the claim by the professional archeaologist there were not enough shell casings to support a last stand on Custer Hill, nor the same with a fight down at the river crossing?

I do agree that at the time of the excavations, this my be the case......but......these are two places that I am sure many visitors to the battlefield picked up a lot of stuff in the years before the battlefield was protected from removing artifacts.

Not only were there the visitors,the reunions, etc. but the Indians have lived there ever since the battle. I am pretty sure that their families have collected many aritfacts that were never recorded.

The fact is, when the studies were done or are being done, this does not seem to be recognized, although it is a well know fact.

Even in early photo postcards of L.A. Huffman, there are photos of Camp and Godfrey collecting shell casings on Reno Hill.

Just a thought. No disrespect intended to the professionals. I have the utmost respect for them and have enjoyed thier books and videos.

You are completely right !

Fox's book is valuable for his chapters about Custer's tactics, but his conclusions based on shells are irrelevant.

Remember that in some parts of the battlefields, only 28 cartridges were found !! 28 !

It's not conclusive, despite what Liar Welch tells us

[Tricia]

Fox maintains that not only does he rely upon physical evidence, but he also looks--more importantly--for patterns. I think that may be an important differentiation when one is dealing with such a tainted battlefield.

[custerstillstands]

Someone on Amazon.com made a very good point on Fox's work :

"This work is limited, shallow and absolutely unfair to the participants in this battle. I am a trial lawyer and I find this author's selective use of evidence appalling. You simply cannot evaluate this battle by relying on the available forensic evidence 125 years after the battle."

[custerstillstands]

companyc said:

Even in early photo postcards of L.A. Huffman, there are photos of Camp and Godfrey collecting shell casings on Reno Hill.

Hello

Thanks for your very good post... Could you post this photographs of Camp and Godfrey ? I've never seen it. Thanks

[michigander]

custerstillstands said:

Someone on Amazon.com made a very good point on Fox's work :

"This work is limited, shallow and absolutely unfair to the participants in this battle. I am a trial lawyer and I find this author's selective use of evidence appalling. You simply cannot evaluate this battle by relying on the available forensic evidence 125 years after the battle."

I agree just with the last line: You simply cannot evaluate this battle by relying on the available forensic evidence 125 years after the battle Too much events and people after the battle...

[elisabeth]

The evidence was being tampered with right from the start. Moylan collected a handful of shell cases from Calhoun's position to give to Maggie as a souvenir of her husband. And Recorder Lee, in the RCOI, raised several times the fact that Indians would have gathered up shell cases to re-use. (After all, they'd now got all those captured Springfields; they'd want the right calibre of ammunition for them.)

Now, if you were an intelligent Indian looking to gather up shell cases, where would you start? You'd go straight to where there'd been the most firing. So it's possible -- just possible -- that the physical evidence proves the exact reverse of Fox's conclusions!

[mcaryf]

If you look at the geography of LSH you can see it is a vey poor position. The fact that it is slightly higher ground but on a slope with no significant depressions and surrounded actually makes it a worse situation than level ground. The positions of soldiers on that slope are clearly visible and they have no better place to which to move. The warriors with the advantages of ravines and tall grass can move and fire without the soldiers getting a good idea of their positions. Soldiers behind dead horses are still vulnerable to plunging arrows. It is not surprising that various individuals or bodies of soldiers tried to run from this open killing ground. The soldiers probably had very few good targets for their own fire and would expose themselves if they raised themselves up. They also have single shot carbines so cannot raise themselves and lay down heavy fire.

Just try to imagine yourselve lying on that open hillside with possibly a horse for cover. What posture will you adapt lying, crouching, kneeling - none seems ideal.

I am not at all surprised that the shooting by the soldiers might be relatively limited. Custer supposedly had 17 remington cases about him but one might assume that of all people he might be prepared to expose himself more and that probably resulted in him being shot. After that I suspect demoralisation set in and individual soldiers would be even less likely to expose themselves and fire.

regards

Mike

[elisabeth]

True ... but then we've also got that "no resistance" story about the Keogh area. Fox may be right on that -- and he's certainly shaped all current thinking -- but the set-up around Keogh's body (trumpeter etc.) suggests a man still giving orders and directing a fight, even though wounded. Of course, as Benteen said, "many orders may have been given; few were obeyed", or words to that effect. It's not conclusive ... But I do agree with Lawtonka that the archaeology has to be treated with due caution. From a site as contaminated as this, it certainly isn't telling us the whole story.

[crzhrs]

Mike:

Good points about warriors hiding from cover. There is enough testimony from Indians that stated they were firing arrows and weapons from cover. If soldiers could not see a target they could not fire at it.

[mcaryf]

Hi Crzhrs

I think the emphasis is that if the soldiers did not expect to see a good target then it would take a very brave man to stick their head up from behind his horse or whatever slight cover he had and spend any length of time trying to see something to shoot at. Perhaps this explains the Indian reports of the soldiers firing well at the beginning but wildly towards the end.

I guess Custer would have been such a very brave man and this might be how he got killed.

With respect to the Keogh area you can imagine there being some wounded looked after there in the small depression together with Keogh's Wing/Btn HQ. A sudden rush by warriors and the the live soldiers shoot their own wounded and then try to resist themselves. This would explain a degree of grouping. My only problem is that the Doctor was found on LSH but perhaps there were two groups of wounded by Wing.

Regards

Mike

[crzhrs]

Interesting point of soldiers killing wounded before fleeing . . . Indians said some soldiers committed suicide but not killing other soldiers, though.

And would soldiers suddenly attacked by warriors have time to kill wounded soldiers, fight Indians and fall back?

Seems unlikely

[custerstillstands]

crzhrs said:

Mike:

Good points about warriors hiding from cover. There is enough testimony from Indians that stated they were firing arrows and weapons from cover. If soldiers could not see a target they could not fire at it.

Red Feather : "If any Indian or soldier stood, he was shot."

Two Moon : "Sioux, Cheyennes and soldiers were falling one after another."

Two Moon : "Many Cheyennes were killed but it wouldn't be the end of it [he was talking about the Last Stand]
Sounds like great killing on both sides

[custerstillstands]

crzhrs said:

Interesting point of soldiers killing wounded before fleeing . . . Indians said some soldiers committed suicide but not killing other soldiers, though.

And would soldiers suddenly attacked by warriors have time to kill wounded soldiers, fight Indians and fall back?

Seems unlikely

There are some testimonies about suicide which are mostly soldiers who were running away or on horseback. But these testimonies are not many, after all.

If you look at White Bull testimony, for example, most soldiers simply understood that there was no hope and fired on the Indians until they were killed. White Bull remembered two soldiers on Calhoun Hill (one could be Calhoun) who were standing with their carbines and guns and shooting at the Indians with great skills.