|
Post by nightshepherd on Jun 19, 2005 2:01:22 GMT -6
Just finished watching the 80's Fox excavations at LBH. Can anyone tell me if they have found the remains of E Troop and started excavating Benteen's after battle dump? I have read somewhere that they think they have sites for both events. Is there any good reading or viewing material on LBH archaelogical stuff, I understand that the BBC did a good doco on the site with their "Battlefield Detectives". Is there anything big planned for the 130th anniversary next year? Cheers from Tasmania....Troy (Nightshepherd)
|
|
|
Post by Lawtonka on Jun 19, 2005 7:48:32 GMT -6
Here is a book or acutually a published report of the findings at the equipment dump.
Papers on Little Bighorn Battlefield Archeology: The Equipment Dum, Marker 7, and the Reno Crossing Edited by Douglas D. SCott. It is Voume 42, Reprints in Anthropology, Printed June 1191 by J & L Reprint Company, 410 Wedgewood Drive, Lincoln, Nebraska 68510.
There are quite a few very good books availble on the Battlefield Archeology. This site and others like CBH MA.org, and Friends of the Little Bighorn are good sources to buy them.
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Jun 19, 2005 21:18:44 GMT -6
I haven't seen Fox's video, so my comment here may be incorrect. The dump was found -- at least I spent several days with my pit partner, Ralph Heinz, digging the dump down the hill from Reno-Benteen in May 1989. Yes, they thought it would be a treasure trove of artifacts but it was mostly hard tack box nails and wolf spiders. Dick Harmon stood over us for two days drooling hoping to see a few Colt pistols or broken Springfields. Boy, was he disappointed -- matter-of-fact we all were. Our saving grace was when Dr. C. Vance Haynes pulled the two of us along with Brian Pohanka off the dig line and put us on a special secret mission. We were going to be part of a team to find the missing 28 troopers in Deep Ravine. The team also included Dick Harmon. We used a hand auger and drove that long tube deep into the ground below the water table, brought it up and all of us grabbed handfuls of mud. We felt through the mud feeling for human remains, buttons, bullets, and such. The mud dropped from our fingers began to accumulate in great quantities. While some poor fellow started digging the next round we spent our time talking about the battle, weapons used, and other fun stuff. All of us started to notice Brian playing with the mud piles on the ground. His fingers moved with precision on a delicate mission. Coming from this historians' hands were accurate renditions of human faces -- three-dimensional. Brian was sculpting the missing troopers. Even though we never found the missing troopers those three days in Deep Ravine, Brian kept us entertained with his masterpieces. You can see a photo of this team at Brian Pohanka's tribute -- www.friendslittlebighorn.com/brianpohanka.htmAs far as books -- I have a list of them at www.friendslittlebighorn.com/archeologybooks.htm
|
|
|
Post by Benteen dump reply on Jun 19, 2005 22:40:13 GMT -6
thank you for the replies I enjoyed them immensly, you don't get to hear much down in Tasmania. How often do you guys carry out your forays?? It sounds like real fun, are there any more plans for finding the missing company? Cheers Troy
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Jun 19, 2005 23:23:29 GMT -6
thank you for the replies I enjoyed them immensly, you don't get to hear much down in Tasmania. How often do you guys carry out your forays?? It sounds like real fun, are there any more plans for finding the missing company? Cheers Troy No plans for such an operation even on the radar. To keep up with any archeological work visit -- www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Archaeology.htm
|
|
|
Post by Danny on Jun 20, 2005 20:22:53 GMT -6
Let me preface my statements by saying I am not a historian and do not claim to be an expert on LBH. I am a small college football coach who majored in history and have always been fascinated with Custer's Last Stand. I say this so no one will take offense to my comments. However I saw the Battlefield Detectives segment on THC yesterday and wanted to post my observations. Then I will let the readers chime in. I have seen the program several times but watched it again. I was unfamiliar with the whole Fox and Scott theory until I finally got to visit the battlefield in 2000. I was dissapointed when I heard the Fox theory. Like most people I had envisioned the gallant last stand.
However in reading a lot about the battle over the last 6 months I have realized that Fox's theory was one of many, several of which do feel there was a last stand. Anyway, here are my observations on the program.
(1) Why does the History Channel not make it clear that this is one theory and not necessarily exactly what happened. They should have made it clear that this was a theory put forth by two men (very qualified men) and that we do not know that it happened this way. If you were a casual watcher you would have thought this was how it happened, no questions asked.
(2) How can these men base the main part of their theory of no real last stand by talking about the scarcity of army shell casings. It is my understanding that there has been several developments and alterations to LSH over the past 129 years. Not to mention that it has been visited by thousands of people over the years. I doubt many shells would have been left to discover over the years.
(3) Fox made it clear that the bodies that constitue the South Skirmish Line were bodies that died in flight. There are obviously two schools of thought on why the men were there, and neither can be truly proved. Indian testimony is conflicting and it seems that Fox picked out the testimony that fit his opinion.
(4) Again there are two schools of thought on what ravines the 28 bodies were found in or near. Soldier accounts of the reburials and Indian accounts are again unclear. But Fox ignores the fact that there have no bodies found there since the burials. I have heard theories on how the bodies have been washed away or worked their way even deeper into the ravine soil. But how can a man who bases his LST theory on the lack of army shells ignore the lack of bodies when he is forming his opinion on Deep Ravine?
(5) Finally I thought that the descendant of White Man Runs Him was funny when he flip-flopped his pronouns during the course of the show. Initially we meant the crow scouts and soldiers and they meant the Souix and Cheyenne. As the battle came to an end he changed we to the hostile indians and they to the soldiers. And at the end he described the battle as Sitting Bull's Last Stand and talked about how the Indians had been massacred and pushed off their land. However his ancestors served with the soldiers and against these people who had been pushed around and massacred. And it is my understanding that the Souix had pushed his people (crow) off the land long before the white man ever came. I felt that his statements were defintely an example of PC selective history.
I apologize for the length of this post and certainly mean no offense to the native americans with my last observation. I do not feel there were any bad guys at LBH, just people fighting for what they felt was right.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 20, 2005 20:59:02 GMT -6
Troy--
Have you seen any Tasmanian tigers lately? As for your questions regarding the 130th anniversary, it appears that the CBHMA's seminar will revolve around 'the other side' of LBH, i.e., the Indian/Native American side. This is at least what Rod Thomas has wished--but it does rest on whom they can get to speak, come June 2006. I don't know if Bob Reece has anything (a symposium) planned with the Friends, or if there are any special memorials, events under consideration at the battlefield, proper. Whatever happens, I'd plan on being there!
From what I have heard, the LBHA annual meeting will take place in Richmond, VA, USA. Though I don't know any details, I wouldn't be surprised if a foray to Amelia Courthouse or Appomattox Courthouse is on the agenda!
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by nightshepherd on Jun 20, 2005 22:34:39 GMT -6
No haven't seen any Tigers of late....used to hear em though. I was thinking on the way home about E Troop again and really do wonder why there hasn't been a concentrated search, you would think the Army itself would want their troopers in a hallowed ground. On another note if anyone can get me a copy (home taped) of the LBH battlefield detectives I'd appreciate it Cheers Troy
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 20, 2005 23:03:13 GMT -6
No haven't seen any Tigers of late....used to hear em though. I was thinking on the way home about E Troop again and really do wonder why there hasn't been a concentrated search, you would think the Army itself would want their troopers in a hallowed ground. On another note if anyone can get me a copy (home taped) of the LBH battlefield detectives I'd appreciate it Cheers Troy Troy-- I do have a copy of it--but is Aussie/NZ video of the same region as that of us here in the USA? I'd be happy to make you/burn you a copy. Funny you bring up E troop--I am starting to think their fate at DR might have been a weigh-station, so to speak, on a way to report to the new regimental commander, Reno. Looking at the markers and all other things considered, I have a hard time believing that Deep Ravine was the "real' last stand, i.e., a purposely taken move--and it was certainly one that would not lead to a direct river crossing, especially if we can agree that Bouyer was still alive ... to a point. A party reporting to Reno also, IMHO, takes in account the presence of Boston Custer and Harry Reid--who were discovered quite far from LSH. The other thing I have heard about DR is that it has been such a primary runoff viaduct, that there wouldn't be much there, so says my pal--and he spends a considerable time at the battlefield every year. Through Mike Donahue's research, I'm beginning to think there may be some treasure in Cemetary Ravine ..... It's all a mystery to me, mate. Leyton McLean
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Jun 20, 2005 23:19:06 GMT -6
(1) Why does the History Channel not make it clear that this is one theory and not necessarily exactly what happened. They should have made it clear that this was a theory put forth by two men (very qualified men) and that we do not know that it happened this way. If you were a casual watcher you would have thought this was how it happened, no questions asked. Actually, with skillful editing the producers made it appear that Doug Scott agrees with Fox that the last stand was in Deep Ravine. Scott is not in total agreement with Fox on that position.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 21, 2005 5:35:32 GMT -6
Danny,
Thanks for one of the better postings lately....you asked some great questions, and put forth some of the more logical thinking I have heard here lately. First of all Fox's theory on the last stand are an embarrassment to himself. Whenever I hear him talk about it I get the impression he doesn't believe it either! First of all, because he, Richard Fox, didn't find anything relating to a last stand he makes a ridiculous statement that there was no last stand. If we treat Last Stand hill as a crime scene then we must ask ourselves..is it a sterile crime scene? ...meaning, has anyone disturbed the evidence? the answer is yes...and as you point out, thousands of people had rummaged around on last stand hill for over one hundred years. Locals had picnics there and speak of finding numerous shell casings lying around. Fox takes none of this under consideration.
There are hundreds of stories by people telling of finding shells and artifacts lying on top of the ground thru the years......apparently Fox doesn't read a lot or listen to local stories of people finding items before the iron fence was erected. Evidence or testimony do not enter into his line of thinking which is....I'm Richard Fox.... I have found very few shell casings on last stand hill...therefore, there was no last stand! It is a really embarrassing proposition to make, I think. I don't think Doug Scott agrees at all with this theory. All we have to do is go back and read the Indians' accounts of the battle. Greg Michno addresses this theory in his Book LAKOTA MOON and gives numerous Indian accounts of the last stand. Kate Bighead's account in Marquis book is the best description of the battle.....the soldiers lying behind there horses and sticking there heads up only to fire their weapons...the Indians arching their arrows to fall within the defensive perimeter.
Your comment on the History Channel was also well appreciated. They are always looking for a new slant on everything in history....and tend to drag out some of the more outrageous and radical propositions on just about everything.....I once heard someone on their channel refer to Buffalo Bill as a gunfighter! Is anyone at their channel checking this stuff?....you have a good line of thinking there Danny me boy!
Troy...wasn't Erroll Flynn from Tasmania? or some place close by? think I saw something about that on Biography.
Scout
|
|
|
Post by Danny on Jun 21, 2005 7:35:07 GMT -6
Scout, Thank you for the kind words. It's almost hypnotic ,the more you study the battle, the more confusing it gets. None of us know for sure what happened and I guess we will never know. But I think it is safe to say that is a lot more fun studying the battle than thinking about actually being on that hill when you realized you were not getting out of that one.
|
|
|
Post by Troy Walker on Jun 21, 2005 22:19:44 GMT -6
G'day again...thanks Leyton we can play U.S videos here, so we are lucky in that respect. As for Dr Fox I believe that he is quite courageous to stand up and propose a therory that is not as welcome as history has passed down. What is known is that most of the troopers were still green, half couldn't ride properly and English was a second language and they were deployed quite stupidly and quite frankly I'd run too if 2000 rather upset injuns were coming at me. If as you say Leyton about deep ravine and water action is correct and this is very possible, one only has to look at the way fossils are deposited...then a look down further would be appropriate. Yes Errol Flynn was a Tasmanian, about the only good thing to ever come out of here, must be great to live in a country that has such wonderful history.....if only I could convince the wife to move. Cheers Troy ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Jun 22, 2005 9:17:49 GMT -6
Troy, the amount and percentage of recruits is overblown. According to Jay Smith, only 12 pct. of the fighting force could be called recruits. In October of 1875, 150 recruits were sent from Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis. About half of these men had seen prior service. Smith says there were only 78 men at the battle with seven months or less of service. Most of the "green" troopers were detailed to pack train or left at the Powder River depot.
When you talk Last Stand Hill, you're talking mostly F Company men. F, the so called "Band Box Troop", because of its spit and polish and discipline, was commanded by Capt. Yates. The majority of its men, particularly the NCOs, were veteran troopers. Men like First Sgt. Kenney and Sgt. Groesbeck had been in the army for a decade or more. So these guys were not green.
I take Fox with a grain of sagebrush, so to speak. He has his thesis to promote. I can't believe all these guys just wet their britches and let themselves be slaughtered. Not when you had Custer himself on that hill, and another 400 some troopers a few miles away.
Lack of aritfacts could mean just lack of artifacts. The place has been cleaned out for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 22, 2005 10:06:42 GMT -6
Steve,
Couldn't agree with you more....I can't find one Indian account of the battle where they say they just shot the soldiers down without a fight. There were 40 to 50 soldiers there on Custer hill and they all were armed to the hilt. Numerous Indian accounts describe crawling up the gullies and ravines firing into the soldiers...and the soldiers fired back! Big Beaver's account of a warbonneted Indian next to him getting hit smack in the forehead is a case in point. The Indians were not so dumb as to rush the hill until most of the soldiers were down...this part of the fire fight may have lasted longer than is known. I call this a last stand...I call this armed resistance.
Troy, with all due respect, I don't think Fox's theory took courage to present...I think it shows a total lack of research and thought. If that sounds harsh I can think of no other reason to disregard Indian accounts of the last stand....they were there.
|
|