Archaeological Disturbances

[Mike Powell]

I recently watched a TV documentary purporting "new" explanations for LBH "myths". Prominent among them was the claim that the fight on LSH was brief, as evidenced by the limited findings of cartridge cases in the 1984 investigation. While the findings and the claim may be correct, I wonder if LSH may have suffered more heavily than other areas of the battlefield from souvenir hunting as years rolled by. I believe casual visitors congregate there today and I suspect that's likely been the case from the beginning. Thoughts and/or anecdotes on the impacts of souvenir hunters?

[wild]

There has been demonstration firings on the field over the years plus a suggested little salting of some of the sites.

[crzhrs]

Don't forget Indians probably picked up not only spent cartridges but just about anything of value to them. So archaeological evidence of not many spent cartridges is tricky at best.

[harpskiddie]

Mike Powell

During the demonstration firings, the troops used different cartridges than were in use in 1876, and were required to police their brass. The firing was also done by infantry troops [there are photographs of same. No infantry cases, .45-70, have been found on the field]. The salting mentioned would be difficult for the same reason, i.e. different cartridges [although bullets and Colt cartridges could have been deposited - but to what end?]

There are numerous reports regarding souvenirs being picked up, starting with the 28th of June 1876, and continuiing over the years. The fencing around last stand hill was not always there. It was put up around the monument when souvenir hunters began chipping away pieces, and moved to surround the LSH stones when they became targets. I'm not absolutely certain, but I think it has changed a couple of times over the years.

crzhrs is right about the Indians picking up cases for reloading, and taking anything else that might prove useful - such as leather goods, clothing etc.

See "They Died With Custer" for stories of human remains being removed as souvenirs and for Army medical purposes. I can tell you from personal experience that cartridges and cases have been removed from various areas, as I have seen it done [before I knew it was illegal].

Gordie

[Dark Cloud]

I'm fairly certain - and aflame with zero proof - that there has been far more than 'demonstration' firing on the field.

Fairly early on, the field was reported picked clean, whatever precisely that meant. Apparently, this also included the buried dump at Reno-Benteen. There are rumors I've heard from people who claimed to know that the field was therefore salted with old cases for benefit of VIP visitors to have magic moments, and curiously, few failed to find any even after the field was stripped of mementos. Allowed, if not encouraged, to keep tourists coming, I'd suppose. Really, back then, what dif? They were in Ringworm, Mt. population: 3 lizards, a billion gnats, and the Superintendent.

There were infantry firings and with newer weapons and ammo than the battle featured. But there is lots of evidence of either firing or salting on the field (the .22's, for example....) that do not preclude firings by older weapons and ammo produced before the battle. It would take a believing mind to think everyone policed themselves to use only newer, easily discernable as modern ammo. Of course, everyone exchanged old weapons for new every year just like Ipods.......not.

If any part of Wooden Leg's story is true of his visit that first winter, I seriously doubt he'd burden himself with all that ammo and not tune up a few exposed corpses to be sure the cartridges were live. Just in case, you know, no offense meant.

Or any of the other visitors didn't do the same. Or any cowboy or visitor or Indian during the lonesome years might fire off a few in honor or disrespect or just because. And no offense to military people, but how adamant the army was about policing cartridges strikes me as a subject ripe for speculation if not laughter. And if they were the older copper cases.....eh. Leave them.

I know people who claim to have done all sorts of things on the field in the past that would give Fox and modern Superintendents the vapors. In an area of the nation where for years it wasn't home without four holes through every Stop sign, I find it entirely believable that two beers and a deer rifle passing by might instill the need for a respectuful salute. Or three beers and uncle's old Army carbine....hard to say where he got it......

[PhillyBlair]

Gordie, and anyone else who may know.....the one event that has always concerned me that may have "contaminated" the evidence on the field was the 10th anniversary. There are pictures of skirmish lines firing, etc. A few questions -- does anyone know where the skirmish lines were (re-enacting the Calhoun line?)? Were they meant to be at the same places as the original conflict? Also, and perhaps more importantly, did they use the same ammo as 10 years previous? I'm certain the ammo changed in later years, but had it by 1886?

[elisabeth]

Oh boy -- that's a very sobering thought.

There are no markers visible in those skirmish lines photos, are there?

Maybe we have it all wrong. What if they deliberately -- out of reverence -- avoided placing their skirmish lines on the same spot? If they were firing as a salute more than a re-enactment, that could well be the case. Hmmm. This could call in question all the theories about Luce, Nye-Cartwright, etc.

Theoretically they'd have policed up their spent shells, but without evidence, can we be sure? Maybe there's a report somewhere from whoever commanded that detachment to confirm that they did; but without that, no way to know.

[Dark Cloud]

In WCF, the lines shown were west of LSH. There undoubtedly have been several variations of this during the subsequent years, and previous. All, of course, strictly policed. We can believe that just as we can believe all assurances from the Army about the field, starting with the respectful burials. All of them....

I would worry more about the vast amount of time nobody recorded presence or firing. The proof is all those cases, non military, produced AFTER the battle, that are found on the field. Either firing or salting. Once you buy THAT, the next step is to realize that if firing was unlikely to be noticed or minded, why would it be limited to ammo and weapons post 1876 to prevent confusion? People keep that stuff, and use it, for years. To this day, in fact.

We have attested witnesses from Weir Point saying Indians were firing into the ground, not unlikely with Army weapons, and this after a period of advancing on other soldiers with those same weapons. There's 24 hours of mutilation and desecration, likely involving firing with Army weapons. Then, collecting of usable cases. Then, with all that ammo, likely practice and testing out. THEN hordes of white visitors scavenging interrupted by Indian visitors doing whatever. THEN formal salutes and firing by soldiers from nearby forts, visitors hunting. Just leaving it at that, to conclude anything whatsoever from what is found in the 1980's is iffy.

But it's likely far, far worse than that. We're periodically assured that salutes were fired blanks, and that the Army always used the newest ammo. I'm sure that was the intent. I'd kind of doubt the reality, though.

[harpskiddie]

Philly:

There were some original photos on EBay recently of some of the scenes from the 1886 reunion, a couple of which I had never seen before. There was the one of the "skirmishers" which has been reproduced in several books over the years [and which is sometimes captioned as being of actual combat]; but it is hard to say where it was staged, since there isn't much depth of field and the background is fairly generic.

The troops in the photo are obviously infantry, and using infantry rifles. They are not at true skirmish intervals, and, as I recall, there are only about 15 or 20 of them. It doesn't appear to be a serious attempt at reenacting any portion of the battle - simply a demonstration for the ladies and gentlemen attending, i don't think they would have marched over to the Calhoun positions just to fire off a couple of rounds, but who knows. The firing might have been done just below LSH. It sorta looks like that to me.

Using rifles, the troops would have been using rifle cartridges, i.e. .45-70, and as mentioned previously, no .45-70 cases have been found on the battlefield. The cartridges had been revamped to use brass cases prior to 1886, partly [perhaps mainly] in response to the reports of malfunction of the copper cases during the Little Horn fights. I'm fairly certain that the change was effected in 1877, but I can't cite a reference off the top of my head or give a date for distribution of the new ammunition. When my copy of Hammer's Springfield Carbine is returned, I'll post whatever information I can. In the meanwhile, somebody else might chip in the info.

No brass cases for .45-55 or .45-70 have been found on the field.

Gordie

[PhillyBlair]

Thanks, Gordie. That makes me feel a little better about the reliability of some studies.

Elisabeth and DC, I share your concern/skepticism regarding some of the findings. I am still very impressed with Fox's work, and believe it to be a fantastic piece of research and theory. At the core, however, I have one major issue -- although it is more philosophical than theoretical. I've always believed that finding the truth about anything is more about asking the right questions than about having the right answers. I've always wondered if Fox asked the right questions. Know what I mean? I don't want to oversimplify his work and reduce it to one question, but as a whole, Fox asks, "What do these findings mean?" Perhaps the better question (in some cases) may be, "where did these findings come from?" Again, I realize that he addresses this to an extent and I don't want to be overly simplistic, but the doubt is there.

[Dark Cloud]

ALL the cartridge cases on the field from the carbines might be .45/70. We don't know. The only way to tell is that the wadding for a .45/55 leaves a burn mark, but after all this time, might not still be there. Varnum says the .45/70 was present and used in Custer's group, and he could hear the difference at Reno Hill. He says 'we' took it, but without being specific to which group he meant: scouts or his company. That's if the cases recovered landed there during the battle, anyway. For all we know, the Army was burning up the old cartridges for its ceremonial salutes in 1886, and the carbines and rifles could fire either the 55 or 70 loads.

As to the suggested "doubt", if there is any it isn't heard or visible. Entire books and theories are formed based on statistically notional evidence. They know only the date of manufacture: if prebattle it's somehow part of the battle. Who fired it when at who is utter guess, no more. THEN meld in the declarations the field had been picked clean, followed by discoveries, and all those non military cases produced too late to be Indian, and someone has a lot of explaining to do. But he silence is deafening.

[harpskiddie]

PhillyBlair:

Im my view, Fox's biggest problem is that he equates a cartidge case with evidence of where it was fired, rather than where it was unloaded. In some weapons [such as lever action rifles] the two may be the same; but not necessarily for a single shot carbine or rifle, and certainly not in the case of a revolver [unless all six rounds were fired and the cases shucked at the same spot]. My other major quibble is that he also derives a direction of movement from cases, when who is to say that it might not have been exactly the reverse, i.e. from B to A rather than from A to B? He also tends to be rather cavalier with labelling troop cartridges and cases as having been fired by Indians after capturing the weapons. My point is that one can make this type of evidence conform to many theories, and select whatever historical evidence fits the theory being propounded.

Elizabeth:

There are no markers visible in any of the photos I have seen of the "skirmishers", which is not remarkable, since the markers were not placed until 1890, i.e. the marble ones. There were, as you know, other markers on the field for various individuals, especially Myles Keough and, strange to me, Corporal Wild of his company. The documented firing was done prior to the marble markers being placed.

I am sure that there were salutes fired at other times, but I would guess that these were given in the Cemetery [and perhaps when the Fort Phil Kearny interments and removals were done].

My last post was being done while you and DC were posting .

Gordie

[PhillyBlair]

Gordie, I couldn't agree with you more about Fox. I'm no authority on archeology or ballistics so I can't go too deep into the argument. I still give him great credit, however, for promoting more discussion and cutting through the "myth." He's done some great work, and I suppose we all bring our theories and preconceptions to our science.

[AZ Ranger]

Unless the army says they destroyed all the old ammunition then it would still be around. Instead of giving it to troopers on active duty when new ammunition became available it could be used for other purposes such as public displays at LBH.

The military had that older style cartridge case because they did not have the equipment to produce a brass cartridge case. They could not afford to buy it from public companies that were producing brass cartridge cases.

I believe there were more cartridge cases removed then we can guess. The upper limit would be equal to or less than that which was brought the day of the battle. The easiest to pick up would be a skirmish line with multiple cases at each position.

AZ Ranger

[markland]

azranger said:

Unless the army says they destroyed all the old ammunition then it would still be around. Instead of giving it to troopers on active duty when new ammunition became available it could be used for other purposes such as public displays at LBH.

The military had that older style cartridge case because they did not have the equipment to produce a brass cartridge case. They could not afford to buy it from public companies that were producing brass cartridge cases.

I believe there were more cartridge cases removed then we can guess. The upper limit would be equal to or less than that which was brought the day of the battle. The easiest to pick up would be a skirmish line with multiple cases at each position.

AZ Ranger

Gordie & Steve are on the same page as I am. There are numerous orders emphasizing that all fired cartridges should be policed (picked up.) Also, old style cartridges were allowed to be used for hunting (I am going on memory & have to verify that from the Executive Papers-War Dept. series.)

Steve, unfortunately I will be hiking Apache Pass (again) tomorrow and it will use up any time I would have had to drive up from Phoenix to Flagstaff to meet you. The next time I am down, watch out!

Billy