You can see fire indications but even these fade away absent a circle of stone. Given that this was a method used since long before the horse arrived, if circles lasted decades or more - centuries, you suggested - than the land would look like acne from those centuries of circles.
The lodge skins were pinned down either by stones or wooden pegs. Those leave rings as traces.
For both you will need to know where to look for it, and what to look for.
And in most instances the pegs might leave no marks. In some cases their rot will alter the soil sufficiently to cause visible vegetation changes, but again, you would need to know what to look for. And this will fade with time.
There were a few tens of thousands of Plains Indians on the northern plains, for not much more than 100 years. Over what, half a million square kilometers?
With a tendency to stick to the same good camp sites repeatedly.
(The Laubins write in their book that there were places where so many lodge rings were overlapping that is was hard to separate them, though one wonders if that was hyperbole)
Before the coming of the horse, there were likely much less people on the plains.
I would rather be suspicious if it would not have been rounded.
In addition, in an earlier quote Fred mentioned that he counted to 1500 without having gotten them all (for whatever reason)
So the "1800" could have been in part estimate.
Okay, didn't realize that the last Pawnee left for Oklahoma in 1875
But still, there is no indication that large numbers of Brule were at the LBH. Certainly not anywhere near in proportion to their number, relative to the other Lakota divisions.
Lakota tribal division were not monolithic entities. They consisted of numerous sub-groups that went their own way most of the year.
And in any case, allegiance to a specific division was fluid and not necessarily clear-cut.
A large part of the activity on the companion board is related to disentangling that mess.
The Oglala was a kind of melting pot, and rife with internal strife. Most bands were "Northern" and sticked to the Powder River country in the 70s. A smaller part stuck to the Platte region where their old hunting area had been.
For the Brule it was the other way around, mostly southern, a few active in the north. But in contrast, Spotted Tail had about as much control as an Indian chief could possibly have, and managed to convince the vast majority of the tribe that armed resistance was pointless. Going after tribal enemies was fine with him, though.
He had been a warrior of Crazy Horses caliber back in the day, a pretty sharp guy by all accounts, and managed to get by with the Whites without appearing a sellout.
Well, mostly at least, he later got shot by one of the few Brule we know to have been at the LBH, under muddy circumstances
No principle problem with that, apart from the usual caveat about likely inflated numbers.
Sure, it could. But so far nobody could point out convincingly where the loophole is to conjure up a few thousand more Lakota.
They had to have vanished to somewhere by 1890, and had to have evaded detection by the military in 1876/77, by the thousands.
I readily accept that I could be of by a thousand, maybe even by two for the total population in 1876.
But to get a larger deviation, I would need a mechanism, and numbers anchored on more than nebulous ideas.
The part at the LBH would be even more difficult to determine, but I again have yet to see a plausible mechanism, backed up by hard data that would allow for more than about 7500 people / 3000 warriors in the "everyone and the kitchen sink" definition.
And not even that. That approach is not useful to establish a floor, and my likely ceiling results in numbers for the valley fight that are not far from Benteen's "900". A few more "single warriors" and we are almost there. Not likely, but possible from my scenario.
2500 in the Reno Hill siege are even better compatible with that ceiling, especially if allowing for women joining the "picnics" there.
The "stats" I am giving are meant as "what-if" numbers.
If my scenario is correct,
then such and such numbers of "warriors" would follow from that.
It primarily emphasizes that indeed my "patent ratios" are approximations, which are likely to be in the region of plus/minus something compared to the historic numbers.
Or might be further off, but I have at least convinced myself that those are at useful to get an idea of ballpark numbers that are anchored on real world, counted numbers.
With that argument, anyone ever defying a threat of "submit or be destroyed" was looking for a fight.
If that's the correct definition, then I would agree.
But if the Army wouldn't have invaded, there's wouldn't have been a war.
Unusual, but not unheard of.
And from past experience, he might have gotten the impression that if you put up enough of a fight, White expansion could be held in check.
From the Indian's perspective, both the closure of the Bozeman Trail, and the cessation of the works on the northern railroad line would have appeared as a consequence of their resistance. They couldn't know that there were economic forces far beyond their understanding at work.
A large force of a nations that effectively had just declared war on you starts marching straight for your home base. They approach to within one night's march distance. You think you have the means to stop them, so you do. Otherwise they might come knocking on your door next morning.
I think the interpretation of the larger picture has changed quite a bit since 1876.
And the question was if Sitting Bull was looking for a fight. What I have read recently, most authors agree that it was rather the United States looking for a fight, in fact planning for a war since 1875.
e.g.
Steward: Custer's Luck
Gray: Centennial Campaign
Ostler: The Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism