|
Post by biggordie on Nov 24, 2008 11:05:23 GMT -6
Job well done, David. As you indicate, it is the age-old question, in this case - which came first, the evidence or the theory?
The French say "Cherchez la femme." the cops say: "Follow the money." I say: "Let the evidence lead you by the nose."
I don't think that Ford D is the generally-accepted "Model" these days. I'll lay odds that more than half of the members on this board are still wedded to the various MTC theories and a retreat from there with the split units re-uniting at Calhoun or thereabouts.
If I knew how to do it, I would post one of those poll thingies, as others have done on various threads.
Take care, and best regards,
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 24, 2008 11:53:03 GMT -6
If, as your theory goes, E Company were meant to stop warriors in DR from assaulting Keogh on the East side of Battle Ridge, where exactly was E Company attempting to establish a position when they moved from CR/LSH? In lower SSL? The most logical model I can derive is that E Co was in the cemetery area in a dismounted firing position, probably put there by Custer to watch over the ford they had just reconnoitered, while F Company went up to the hill (LSH). I don't think many Warriors were around Yates' squadron at this time...I think 90% of them were concentrated on Keogh. So when Custer gets to the crest of LSH and sees CH and LWM going over the top of Battle Ridge, into I Co, and overruning C Co in the process, and getting behind L Co on Calhoun Hill, he quickly deploys F Co to fire in that direction and orders E Co to mount up and charge from the cemetery area west of LSH and up towards Keogh. This should open a path to reunite the two squadrons...Yates and Keogh. One element provides fire, whilst the other charges, rather a classic tactic. E Co fall into deep gully, and that is that. Only then do the Warriors turn on Yates. C Co is gone, and Calhoun is moving off Calhoun towards Keogh, and Keogh is trying to sort out the mess of a melee I Co is in down the valley. This is going on as E Co is dismounting and firing from SSR and diving into the gully. So you see, my model has no E Co "breakout" from anywhere...they weren't surrounded when they charged. I think the infamous "suicide boys" charge was on the heels of E Co's attack, almost following them, out of the "cemetery ravine" area. The only breakout my model includes is a last minute one by Bouyer and misc. Soldiers. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 24, 2008 11:59:26 GMT -6
Setting that aside for the moment, where is the evidence on the ground? If there has been anything found that proves there was such an occupation, or indeed proves that the maneuvers that are currently being talked about, stemmed from that region, then I must have missed them. Isn't there physical evidence of a skirmish line of cartridges from the cemetery area? Can't remember where I saw that, though, but I think that is where this "battle position" model came from. Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 24, 2008 12:08:50 GMT -6
Shan's theory is unhysterical, requires no Custer unknown to history, no implausible tactical debut for the 7th, and conflicts with no testimony or early photos of the markers. He shows appreciation of institutional memory for theories and indicates personal appreciation for common sense and simplicity of action coherent with other battles, especially those in the Indian wars post civil war. Worse, he writes well.
Who the hell let him in? Stuff like that gives Custerland a good name.
As his penance for continuing, from my notional lofty perch somewhere above (reminder to Minions and vassals: the holidays are here and my gift list is at Shreve, Crump, and Lowe's Boston store) I demand he immediately complete at least two of the following accepted Custerland themes:
1. Construct a website dedicated to one member of the 7th who died. It must be maudlin and worshipful and recall fansites to people named Spears and Timberlake with lots of gooey paintings, boilerplate quotes, unlikely stories.
2. Select an avatar of himself in uniform of that soldier in period costume looking as gay as possible, whether or not he was ever a soldier himself.
3. Reconstruct his theory using the terms traitor, coward, and honor as often as possible.
4. Use at least five different ID's on this board.
Obviously, this will cause annoyance, so Merkel is instructed to assign three moderators (blood related to one of us) to each board to protect me from adverse comment, or people from laughing at me, or anything unpleasant.
My attention was directed to that board yesterday, and it looks like Wiggs has decided upon yet another persona. I mention in passing.
|
|
Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 1, 2008 20:07:38 GMT -6
My characterization of the archaeological evidence comes mostly through Richard Fox...granted, his whole thesis hinges on the concept that little to no "last stand" occurred. While I feel confident that Fox captures right-wing movements with accuracy, his left-wing movements are still a little hard to sell in my book. But nevertheless, he was directly involved with the archaeological project, which historians like Sandy Bernard and Greg Michno have quoted (and in their own designs, misconstrued in terms of meaning.)
As Fox says, although "a cavalry presence on the SSL is amply demonstrated by numerous Indian bullets there. . .the great numerical disparity between government cases and Indian bullets is provocative. It immediately raises the prospect that troops suffered considerably on the ridge and were ill prepared, unable, or unwilling to react tactically.Certainly there is nothing at all in the .45/.55 casings suggestive of a skirmish line, and Colt .45 cases are entirely absent." The only thing that that proved copious were plenty of government bullets (meaning indian targets were shot AT here) and plenty of Indian bullets (soldiers were shot AT here). There is little evidence, based on distribution and numbers, that troopers actually discharged their weapons here in a defensive manner. But curiously, Barnard mentions "hundreds of shells." I think each confuses "cases" with "bullets," and fails to recognize the meaning of one's predominating presence over the other.
While 5/6 excavated markers in SSL (three in upper, three in lower) did yield human remains, I have not read anything in my research that suggests these are five individuals, or simply the remains of only a few men scattered and buried at six different sites. Fox suspects bone scattering from poor reburial; but regardless, 5/6 markers is a pretty high ratio - higher than what sample markers on Calhoun Hill yielded when excavated. Does this mean that most troopers fell where the markers on SSL exist today? Not necessarily - historical accounts make it clear that only 6-10 bodies were found on upper SSL (Mcdougall, Thompson, Hardy, Godfrey), not the 36 total markers which commemorate the troopers there today.
And yes - Clair - bullets along the flats are oriented to suggest that many came from a CR position. And many of them are not within view from SSL, which means troopers were further down from LSH and on elevated ground when they fired these bullets.
|
|
|
Post by lutherhare on Dec 1, 2008 21:04:04 GMT -6
Fair points all around. You hit upon one of the big conundrums regarding the SSL affair- the archaeology suggests the markers in the basin generally represent genuine burials (and incidentally, I think that Where Custer Fell raised the point rather well that the markers are generally accurate), but there are a number of accounts that state only a handful of bodies were found in that area. I suspect the discrepancy mostly stems from the oversimplification of the terrain that I mentioned earlier. Certainly a lot of the RCOI testimony about Ravine H could place those fellows from just under Custer Hill to darn near the river. To take McDougall as an example, according to Camp, McDougall placed only 9 men "between the end of the ridge and the gully (not counting the group that lay around the body of Gen. Custer), and 28 in the gully." Well, that can mean a lot of things depending on what "the gully" is! I have to disagree that anything about the affair is "clear", much less where the bodies were found in the basin. Upon generalized terrain descriptions hinges much of the confusion, methinks. Deep Ravine is one of the topics where I think Camp let his confirmation bias get in the way- the idea of 28 men being in Deep Ravine stems largely from Camp, not just Fox. I don't want to be unfair to Fox, but if I recall correctly, his spin in Archaeology, History is not quite the same as the Scott-influenced write up in Perspectives. Will have to pull down the book later to check. I will say that it's always been a definite impression of mine that Scott has never been entirely enthusiastic about Fox's Deep Ravine theory. Fox, IMO, allowed too much personal interest to get staked in the whole Deep Ravine theory. It strikes me that he always seemed to be grasping at straws to keep his theory/project alive. Not saying his efforts weren't valid...but it just seems odd that an archaeologist can hold to a major theory when he doesn't find any archaeological evidence to support it. Any discussion of Co. E or the SSL has to come back to the Deep Ravine theories. If those markers in the basin aren't accurate, then the bodies have to be elsewhere. And the alternative is pretty much a Deep Ravine burial. And the archaeological evidence just ain't there. Those boys may be down there yet-some accounts certainly do seem to point that way-but there's just too big of a void in evidence for me to throw my weight behind the Fox camp. It just doesn't make much sense that E Co. as a whole would wind up in the basin being shot at and forced into a gaping ravine.
|
|
Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 1, 2008 21:56:13 GMT -6
Absolutely - the definition of what "the gully" or "ravine" is, is also another part of the puzzle. For example, historians long thought Mitch Bouyer was among the slain in the ravine itself, yet his body has clearly been identified near the divide between upper and lower SSL. Is lower SSL (including the shallow swale above the headcut) the "gully" where a pocket of 28 bodies were found?
Its always frustrating reading white and Indian accounts, because the varying terminology used to describe the terrain makes it difficult to truly pin where on the battlefield the account is referring to. Some describe troopers running into a "gully," others a "cul-de-sac" with steep sides that proved impossible to scramble out of once they had gone in it. A gully to me is a shallow, easily traversed formation - not a cul-de-sac with steep walls. Michno suggests that the "gully" is Cemetery Ravine, and that markers in the lower SSL were "refugee" markers when the skirmish line below Custer Hill was outflanked by warriors utilizing Deep Ravine to fire into the troopers (a theory that was originally borrowed from another historian..can't remember his name)...I'm not too impressed with his argument overall, but he raises some good points when he examines the likelihood of a cavalry movement making it to Deep Ravine, because Deep Ravine itself was probably an Indian position, and many Indian and White accounts do not reflect the belief that 28 bodies were found inside the ravine - rather, most suggest they died before they reached it, and perhaps a handful found refuge within the ravine. However, he fails to differentiate between accounts that describe C Company near GGR and E Company, which is where I am more confident in Fox's assessment.
Michno is mostly consumed with the fact that NOTHING has been found in Deep Ravine. But at the very least, we would expect to find evidence of SOMETHING battle-related, even if not bodies, if we were to assume Deep Ravine played a role in some way. And from what I understand, the trenches haven't so much disproved bodies aren't there, but simply proven only where bodies can be, if they are there at all. I would have to re-read the stuff about soil layers and trenches and sediment deposition, but there is genuine scientific reason to dismiss Michno's juvenile tendency to compare apples to oranges ("we found a cavalry dump site that wasn't deeply submerged in soil..so therefore the bodies in Deep Ravine shouldn't be!").
You're totally right about Archaeological Perspectives. I actually juxtaposed it with Archaeology, History to get a sense of how they present the evidence in each...Perspectives is far more generous towards a SSL theory. Perspectives offers evidence that suggests warriors fought troopers at a distance before moving in close along SSL; "Indian groups were firing at ranges up to 500 yards...into the soldiers on the SSL." Perspectives assumes that Springfield carbine bullets (evidence of seven different carbines used) were captured weapons turned against the troopers - Fox seems to prefer these were fired by cavalry troopers into Indian warriors that occupied the sector before/after a disastrous cavalry movement through the area. Regardless, 500 yards is a considerable distance, and would suggest the cavalry movement in this sector was engaged in long distance fire before warriors got particularly close in on the troopers....sounds more like an organized deployment that was contested at long-range, not a panicked flight that was up-close. Curiously, however, Perspectives does say this: "The relatively small number of Indian cartridge cases found to the north and west of SSL suggests that the Indians attacking from this quarter were not as well armed as those attacking Calhoun." Makes me wonder if it wasn't that they weren't well armed, so much as they were charging the troopers from these directions to engage in hand-to-hand combat. If this were true, warriors from this direction, possibly mounted drove the troopers (possibly from CR) towards deep ravine.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Dec 1, 2008 22:57:31 GMT -6
If you correct the number of markers present with what should be there, without regard to which specific markers are spurious, you must reduce the overall number to a maximum of 197 [210 with Custer's command less at least 13 found outside the boundary fences]. If you assume that 28 of those should actually be in Deep Ravine, then you must reduce the 197 to 169 [there is no evidence of a credible nature that any of those supposed 28 bodies were ever brought out].
That means that a full one third of the markers would have to be removed - picture in your mind what a different scene that presents of the battlefield.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by bc on Dec 1, 2008 23:25:25 GMT -6
Exactly Gordie. Which is why I'd like to see some color and size enhancements of the photos from 1877-79 with the original stakes. Would be an interesting study for someone with those skills. Too bad I don't have any skills.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Dec 2, 2008 10:12:25 GMT -6
Britt:
Me too - or neither, whatever the correct term is!! I do believe that there is, somewhere out there, a special software for this operation; but I'm not gonna be looking for it any time soon. Frank, who posted on the NDN boards, used to do colorized photos that were terrific, like those Custer ACW ones on another thread.
I still have trouble finding pictures on my PC, and if my camera didn't have a USB connection which up-loaded, or down-loaded, or re-loaded, or dis-loaded, everything automatically, I'd still be using my old 35MM and hoping for the best. Of course, my digital camera is set on AUTOMATIC EVERYTHING.
Gordie
|
|
Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 2, 2008 14:03:30 GMT -6
Gordie -
Very interesting insight. When we pause a moment and consider just what these markers really mean to us, and how they have shaped our perception of the battle, it is a tad "scary" for historians who recognize the possibility that these monuments created the history, as opposed to history creating the monuments. I think the markers are reasonably accurate - but they were still put on the battlefield 14 years after the battle...and just as extra markers were placed on the field which represented Reno's dead, so too bodies continued to remain undiscovered (even as late the 1990's!).
What's this about 13 bodies found outside the fence boundaries?
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Dec 2, 2008 14:56:04 GMT -6
Commanche:
In my long-awaited, highly-anticipated [by three or four people] and seemingly-endless treatise on the Little Horn Fights, I have divided the manuscript into several sections: narrative; sources; bibliography; discussion sections, etc .
Among the discussion sections are three devoted to the burials, the markers, and a reconstruction of the death-sites on Custer Field [which is, of course, impossible, but what the hell!]. To answer your question, I will quote a few passages from the "reconstructing" section [pretend that there are quotation marks around the following]:
The outside limit is, of course, 210 - the total number of men in the Custer commands who went beyond Medicine Tail Coulee. Not all of these men, hoever, died within the confines of the fenced area of Custer field, and so no markers should appear on that field for them...the most famous of which was that of First Sergeant James Butler....Corporal John Foley.....
At least one body from the Custer battalions was found opposite the MTC ford on the village side,...Sergeant James Bustard...[or] William Brown of F Company.....[or both]
...an almost complete skeleton was, however, discovered by Frank Bethune a couple of hundred yards northeast of the 1905 find.....either John Duggan of L or John Darris of E....There may have been parts of another body discovered at or near this same location, although it appears probable that there was only one skeleton in total.
There is a preponderance of evidence that Orderly Trumpeter Henry Dose was killed down near the Deep Coulee/Medicine Tail flat.....
The trumpeter Camp thought was Dose was most probably Henry Voss, the Chief Trumpeter, whose body was found near the river, but not near Medicine Tail. George Glease and Henry Mechlin,....said independently that the body was Voss'......
.....there is absolutely no doubt that Kellogg's body was found near the river, northwest of Deep Ravine, by Colonel Gibbon's party on 28 June......
....speculated that Dose was among the four skeletons found near Blummer and Luce ridges
About 1000 yards north of this area, just across a wash sparating Blummer Ridge from the next divide, a fragment of a human phalanx was found, indicating a probable death site....and just outside the northwest battlefield fence line, about 650 yards from the northwest corner, a human leg bone was found.....the remains of yet another dead trooper.....
So now the grand total is thirteen, or at least thirteen. The Oglala Red Hawk told Nicholas Ruleau that.....about a month after the battle....at the mouth of a ravine they found eight dead soldiers lying with their uniforms on and their guns and ammunition and everything by them...........
So there are your thirteen, or at least that many. I have not bothered to quote the sources, which are given in the actual section, as is my reconstruction exercise. If you are interested enough in the matter to wish to have a copy of that section, or/and of either or both of the other two, simply PM me your mailing address, and I'll send them along. Your only obligation will be to not reproduce the material and to stand me a couple, or eight, beers if we ever meet.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 19, 2008 13:43:41 GMT -6
Doesn't anyone think that any remains found may have been scattered around by scavengers?
A leg bone of GAC here, an arm bone of Bustard there, a foot of Cooke over here, and the cheek bone of Boyer near the river.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Dec 19, 2008 18:39:19 GMT -6
crz- "...Doesn't anyone think that any remains found may have been scattered around by scavengers?..."
Heck yeah.
The original burial details were unprepared to deal with so many bodies. Scratching some dirt over them, then laying some brush over that, isn't in any way going to stop cayotes or wolves and such - not to mention rainfall, or even the wind.
I wouldn't be surprised if Custer's grave at West Point is shared with a bit of Vic.
M
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Dec 19, 2008 19:56:12 GMT -6
crzhrs:
Sure - that is why there were the several and continuing re-burials over the years, and the constant tidyings up. But that doesn't alter the fact that the markers, once corrected, give a pretty accurate picture of where the bodies were found and buried, and the evidence is overwhelming that they were buried where found, except for a few.
Of course, that is only one part of the picture, since the mere fact of a body being buried doesn't tell how it came to be there or how that specific man was killed, or when in the fight. That's where a correlation with other evidence comes in.
The markers should not be used to CREATE a theory, but can be used to CHECK a theory - in other words do they contradict it. The same holds true for archaeological evidence, and the anecdotal evidence about the cross-dressing warriors, which DC likes to intrude every chance he gets, not pointing out when he does so that it all took place AFTER the fight was over, most of it quite a bit after, and some of the stories dependent upon one supposed witness interviewed 50 odd years AFTER the battle.
Gordie
|
|