|
Post by Jas. Watson on May 17, 2006 7:45:57 GMT -6
Yes, I have and read the 'big one' too. I wonder if a less invasive, and faster, survey such as GPR (ground penatrating radar) could be done on the upper reaches of the ravine. I know this wouldn't work further down as the depth would be too great, but the upper reaches..... For some reason I think this is a question that could really add a lot one way or the other if it were answered. Much speculation as to movements and intentions seem to revolve around just where and how many of those bodies there are. Perhaps some more serious effort in investigation should be spent on this. I bet the results will be surprising--and will only add more mystery...because that's the way everything concerning this battle goes.
Jas.~
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 17, 2006 8:36:35 GMT -6
Jas.--
You bring up a very interesting point w/ all this, & I totally agree w/ you. I think it is extremely important to the whole study of those last few minutes of the battle. To me, the 2 leading proponents of the issue are Fox & Michno. Where those men died would render one of them correct.
For example, if enough evidence was found in Deep Ravine-- especially lower down-- it would tend to confirm the Fox theory that the SSL is a myth, there was no organized resistance there, & panicked men fled to the area they perceived as being the safest. If, on the other hand, little or nothing was found-- w/ the exception of a minor aggregation at the head of the ravine-- it would rather confirm Michno's interpretation that there was, indeed, resistance on the SSL, the markers are generally correct in their placement, & that most of those men died in or near or around Cemetery Ravine.
I am very surprised this has not been undertaken.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 17, 2006 8:47:18 GMT -6
Yes, I have and read the 'big one' too. I wonder if a less invasive, and faster, survey such as GPR (ground penatrating radar) could be done on the upper reaches of the ravine. I know this wouldn't work further down as the depth would be too great, but the upper reaches..... For some reason I think this is a question that could really add a lot one way or the other if it were answered. Much speculation as to movements and intentions seem to revolve around just where and how many of those bodies there are. Perhaps some more serious effort in investigation should be spent on this. I bet the results will be surprising--and will only add more mystery...because that's the way everything concerning this battle goes. Jas.~ Jas., over on the History Channel message boards, one of the better researchers/correspondents has posted a nice analysis of the Deep Ravine. It can be found at this URL. tinyurl.com/hdwscBest of wishes, Billy
|
|
|
Post by ignimbrite on May 20, 2006 22:21:47 GMT -6
The Michno book was the LBH book that rekindled my interest about 7 years ago. It is fascinating. While looking around the NPS archeology site on LBH, I saw this listed Applied Ground Imaging 1996 Little Bighorn Battlefield, Montana, Non-Intrusive Characterization Survey Field Project, Ground Pentrating Radar Survey. Manuscript report on file Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Applied Ground Imaging conducted experiments with new geophysical remote sensing instruments to see if they were capable of finding any features that might be associated with the soldiers reportedly buried in Deep Ravine. An anomaly was located that is consistent with a deeply buried disturbed area in the same location as that predicted by earlier geomorphological studies. Is this something new from 1996, or a report on earlier work? Has anyone seen or have this report? It sounds intriguing. I really want to delve deeper into Deep Ravine geology when I get back from my tour. That way I can combine two interests in one Ruth
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 21, 2006 7:34:43 GMT -6
Applied Ground Imaging 1996 Little Bighorn Battlefield, Montana, Non-Intrusive Characterization Survey Field Project, Ground Pentrating Radar Survey. Manuscript report on file Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Applied Ground Imaging conducted experiments with new geophysical remote sensing instruments to see if they were capable of finding any features that might be associated with the soldiers reportedly buried in Deep Ravine. An anomaly was located that is consistent with a deeply buried disturbed area in the same location as that predicted by earlier geomorphological studies. Very interesting, indeed, but what has anyone done about it? I wonder what Richard Fox or Greg Michno would say-- or have said. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 21, 2006 9:48:15 GMT -6
Fred,
I don't know about Fox or Michno, but the find was not ignored. If I remember correctly, the disturbed area was core-drilled, but nothing was found. Apparently Luce used the Deep Ravine as a trash dump while he was Superintendent, so that could have been why the imager found a disturbed area (covered-over garbage). The Deep Ravine has changed dramatically since the battle.
Diane
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 21, 2006 9:55:52 GMT -6
If I remember correctly, the disturbed area was... Diane-- How about Luce's brain? And this guy was supposed to be a historian, as well? Best wishes, Frec.
|
|
|
Post by Lawtonka on May 21, 2006 10:04:56 GMT -6
I don't think there has been any further excavation at Deep Ravine since 1985. I was reviewing Digging Into Custer's Last Stand by Sandy Barnard (1986) and at that time they had used a backhoe to dig a series of 10 trenches across the ravine floor. Some of the cuts nearest the mouth were up to 15 feet deep.
Geomorphologist Vance Haynes , standing in one of the cuts at a depth of 6 feet made the statement, "We know where there's another floor -- six to eight feet down." He estimated the total depth in 1876 would have been about 12 feet. He also stated, "It is quite likely that a vertical headcut at least 14 feet existed in Deep Ravine at the time of the battle."
He also doubted that any of the remains had washed away based on the lack of any material objects found by metal detectors or the trenches that were dug.
In a letter to Jim Court, Park Supt. at the time, he stated, "Because so little was found downstream I suspect that much of the remains of Troop E lie buried by several feet of alluvium between the two path crossings, the area Rich [Richard Fox] and I wanted to test in the first place."
The interesting thing is this -- He recommended that "for the proper assessment of the battle history related to Deep Ravine I think that it is essential that the hypotheses regarding Troop E be tested by controlled archeological excavations in Deep Ravine between the two path crossings." He also estimated that no more than three 2x2 meter test pits would be needed to locate any troop remains.
They must have been denied the opportunity to dig the trenches in the area between the two path crossings. It could have been because of time factor or something else.
So, the mention of the use of ground imaging used in 1996 and the results that it shows evidence of somthing buried deep, eveidentally has never been investigated any further?
It seems as though I had read something or heard that no further excavations in Deep Ravine were in the plans.
|
|
|
Post by bubbabod on May 21, 2006 14:08:39 GMT -6
Right on, Fred. Out of all the terrain available, why would anyone pick Deep Ravine as a dump?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 21, 2006 17:36:00 GMT -6
Why would anyone build a road right through Weir Point?
|
|
|
Post by ignimbrite on May 21, 2006 17:59:08 GMT -6
I don't think there has been any further excavation at Deep Ravine since 1985. No further excavations, but 200 auger holes were drilled in 1989. Michno's book is copyright 1994 and mentioned those holes. The manuscript about the ground imaging stuff is 1996. That's why I wondered if anyone on the boards here had read it. Is the anomaly the "dump site"? By 1996 they would have known the dump/rip-rap was there, so is this a different disturbance or a reconfirmation? Not knowing anything about such imaging, can it "see" through known disturbances like the backhoe trenches to other historical disturbances below? Too many things I don't know . Never enough time. Ruth
|
|
|
Post by Lawtonka on May 21, 2006 19:44:25 GMT -6
Why would anyone build a road right through Weir Point? What Were They Thinking Must have been a "theme park attitude" trying to put the visitor closer to the spot! The engineer must have thought he was designing a scenic road uhhhhh....... Reminds me of a few years ago, down near Beaufort, SC they decided to expand the width of US HWY 17. At a place next to the marsh sat a pristine set of Confederate earthworks. This was a Confederate Two Gun Batttery with documented history in the OR's ! Guess what, the survey took them right through the middle of it......almost. I went down there and looked it over myself and sure enough, there were survey markers dotting right across the earthworks! Fortunately, some of our guys in the Low Country along with the director of the Parris Island Museum were able to presuade the Highway department to move the road over about 30 feet to the east and they were alble to build the road with room to spare! A very good friend of mine is the state archeologist for the Highway Department. Fortuantely, he is a compasionate student of the Confederate History in our state.
|
|
|
Post by bubbabod on May 21, 2006 20:37:08 GMT -6
Lawtonka, it's amazing to me how construction can plow right through places like the Confederate batteries you mentioned or try to develop places around Bull Run, but if they find a single dinasour bone or shard of pottery, they halt things and call in the archaeologists. I mean, I agree with that, too, so why not military historical places also? Dumb, dumb, dumb. And as far as Bull Run are being developed, I guess money talks unless the good folks around there protest. Did I mention "dumb, dumb, dumb?"
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 21, 2006 20:59:38 GMT -6
I don't know what the solution to this sort of thing is. First of all, I say, let all these sites alone, period. No roads, no theme parks, no diaramas, no dumps, no nothin'. Then there are guys like us who want to explore or metal detect or find out things. What do you do? Keep the sites off limits & just issue permits to researchers or historians or archeologists? I don't know. I hate that road through the LBH battlefield, but you know something? It brought me right into the crotch of Weir Peaks & I climbed them both. I don't have a solution.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|