Archaeological Disturbances

[AZ Ranger]

Billy If you get this way let me know. My Department allows ride along and I could show you some country here. That invitation is open to anyone from the this board that would be in the Flagstaff area and has some free time.

Steve

AZ Ranger

[Mike Powell]

As a first time poster, I was surprised at the number of responses and issues raised in response to my request. I've learned quite a lot on factors I had not considered that may have impacted the archaeological record. Thanks to all. Here are my resulting thoughts.

1 - Immediate Battlefield Cleanup By the Natives - This had a significant impact and, to the extent it may have been unevenly applied across the Custer battalion areas, it was distortive. I suspect visible bodies of the slain drove the focus of the cleanup. Beyond that, I have no idea of how this process may have occurred.

2 - Demonstration Firing - I was unaware of this and it seems a potentially significant distorter. Perhaps more information will come forward as to some of the locations where it occurred. As info, Kenneth M. Hammer in The Springfield Carbine on the Western Frontier , page 10, opines "...it is likely that both .45-55 and .45-70 ammunition were used in the Battle of the Little Bighorn." He states (page 9) that "...about 13 of 47 unfired cartridges found on the Reno-Benteen battlefield in later years were .45-70s based on x-rays of the cartridges." Hammer then provides (unreferenced) a statement by a First Sergeant John Ryan that he had traded .45-55's for .45-70's for use in his Sharps rifle which he used in the fight. Also, Hammer refers to a letter by Lt. Varnum later in 1876 stating that he thought the regiment was using the 70-grain cartridge and not the 55-grain. (referenced to W. A. Graham, The Custer Myth - A Source Book of Custeriana, page 347) and that Lt. Godfrey's in response to a question if "Carbine shells, caliber .45." he had found on the field were "The same as the troops used or different?" said "The same as some of the troops used." (referenced to Ronald H. Nichols, ed., Reno Court of Inquiry, page 494.)

3 - Salting - We'll never know but I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened, whether to satisfy a visiting party with souvenirs or for the sheer joy of hoaxing.

4 - The Odd Shot - Dark Cloud struck a chord with the image of "two beers and a deer rifle passing by". Done there, been that.

Sure would be nice to now hear from an archaeologist on the subject. Again, thanks all.

[Nomad]

Hello Everyone,

According to the Principle of Superposition, the strata of an archaeological grid is a time column, i.e., the artifacts recovered from the bottom of an excavation are older than the artifacts found at the top. Therefore, the artifacts deposited during the battle, are found below those deposited at a later date.

The artifacts recovered by Fox, et. al., were measured in a scientific manner, that is, their locations were noted both horizontally on the field, and vertically in the time column. An investigating archaeologist might also use seriation in conjunction with stratification to increase the probability of dating accuracy.

Strata, (And soil horizons) run horizontally across the battlefield; seriation allows that artifacts recovered from the same strata, regardless of the distance between them, were deposited at the same time.

By using these simple methods (inter alia), Fox, et. al. were able to distinguish between those shell casings that were deposited during the battle, and those deposited later by whatever means.

Thank you for your time.


Nomad

[Dark Cloud]

While terribly impressive sounding, I'd sincerely hope not much was based upon that, and don't really see how, other than in a gully with silt accumulation, that would be all that informative on the Custer field. Troy, Crete, Boston, sure. Well into the Second World War people were finding cases on the surface of the ground that are now considered from the battle. Not my claim, just saying.

By the way, at what point does something become archaeological? Ten years?

In any case, no pun intended, a case deposited a half hour after the battle by Indians doing projectile analysis on corpses and tuning up their new carbines would not be distinguished from those of the battle. Anything left that summer by those captured guns and ammo after a brisk round of exposed corpse rendering could not be distinguished from anything from the battle. Or, frankly, from that decade after the battle, provided the item was made previous to the battle. A prolonged visit by a string of buffalo or cattle, cavalry horses, or tourist coach exposing and then stomping down on the artifacts would render much of that nonsense and guess.

If I had used cases from the same type of ammo Custer had and buried them on the field today in a line ending at the casino, and they were found in ten years, it'd be a firing line!

Anything made before the battle and salted, lying partially on the surface, "recently exposed by wind and frost heave" would pass muster as a precious artifact, provided it hadn't been kept polished for a decade.

[AZ Ranger]

Dc In short I would agree. You cannot separate by the year. The graves were dug and remains moved. There is and old range on the Verde river and there is cartridge cases still on the surface there. It hadn't been used since the 40's. There is Indian pottery chards on the surface also.

AZ Ranger

[Nomad]

Apparently, you are out of your element here. It is clear to me, at least, that you do not understand the relationship between artifact deposition and archaeology. FYI:
1 The work of all archaeologists everywhere, including the Little Bighorn battlefield, is based on stratification and seriation.
2 Stratification and seriation can narrow the date of an artifact’s burial to within a timeframe of six months.

The artifacts recovered at the battlefield were buried and revealed by more than just alluvial activity; wind and bioturbation also played an active role. And to answer your question, cultural material becomes an artifact when it is recovered.

You have imagined a number of deductive scenarios where artifacts are deposited in such a way as to distort the accuracy of historical research. Fortunately, archaeology is an inductive science.

Fox, et. al., reasoned inductively with the artifacts to form hypotheses, and build working theoretical models. For example, it is true that cartridge casings may have been deposited by Indians firing into the troopers bodies as they lay on the ground; however, it is also true that the recovered casings were deposited by cavalrymen. It is true that souvenir hunters may have taken a number of casing from Custer Hill, but what percentage of those casings were dropped by Indians, and what percentage were dropped by troopers?

I think it is reasonable to assume that since the Springfield carbine was issued to cavalrymen, and not to Indians, that more cartridges were fired and ejected by the troopers, then were fired and ejected by Indians administering a few coup de grâce. Therefore, it is more likely that cavalry troopers fired more of the casings that were picked up by souvenir hunters from any part of the battlefield, and since it is more likely that the troopers fired more rounds from their own weapons than did the Indians, it is more likely that Custer’s troopers fired more of the remaining casings than did the Indians. The same statistical reasoning can be used to determine the ratio between Springfield carbine casing dropped during the battle, and those deposited at a later date.

Many of your scenarios start with a conclusion, and beg to describe individual incidents, which is contrary to the way Fox, et. al., constructed their theories. Using deductive reasoning to explain inductive theory is an exercise in futility. I suggest that you construct your critical analysis using the same statistical concepts and inductive reasoning as the archaeologists who did the investigation, and then determine for yourself if your original critique was justified.


Thank you for your time.


Nomad

[AZ Ranger]

The same statistical reasoning can be used to determine the ratio between Springfield carbine casing dropped during the battle, and those deposited at a later date.

Give me the figure for what was dropped by troopers with Custer's battalion and where you got that number for a starter.

Considering Fox only found 87 45/55 cases and these were from 69 different carbines of which only 13 carbines had more than one 45/55 case found for a specific carbine, one should not draw to many conclusions from this.

In 1972 Hedren looked at 1,625 cases which must have been removed before Fox.

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

2 Stratification and seriation can narrow the date of an artifact’s burial to within a timeframe of six months.

What type of seriation are you talking about frequency or contextual?

Within 6 months

does not work for bullets fired at different angles from the ground and with varying amount of energy when they hit the ground or for cases that remain on the surface or cartridge cases produced at the same time but placed at a later date. (see Fox page 47)

Within 6 months

Here's what Fox says "Or could they represent target practice from Fort Custer( established in 1877)?" They separated on headstamp but not for identical headstamp (lack of) cases.


This is a quote from Archaeological Insights into the Custer Battle on page 24 "In recording and collecting, we did not did not discriminate on the basis of period association, Prehistoric, battle-related, postbattle-related, and late historic artifacts were considered equally"

[Dark Cloud]

Pretentious nonsense.

Virtually NONE of that applies to the LBH artifacts. Even if the laughable contention of six months distinction were possible, it wouldn't alleviate the issue of what was part of the battle and what after. Or before. That's silly.

We have eye witnesses - 7th cavalry - of Indians firing into objects on the ground. A lot.

What does stratification and seriation edify about surface artifacts? And artifacts of what?

[AZ Ranger]

In one of the excavations near a marker they found one casing and one 45/55 bullet. Suicide or Indian?

[Dark Cloud]

How do we know that was not a .45/70 bullet? Crucial to understanding of the battle........

How do we know it wasn't fired by a Sioux the following February? Or in 1886?

[Nomad]

Dark,

Your personal hang-ups are seeping into your discussion. And you’re still having a problem understanding that using deductive reasoning to criticize an inductive process is a non-starter; they are mutually exclusive ways of thinking.

Fox began his investigation by making observations, and reaching general principles. You begin your critique with a general principle, and then try to explain Fox’s observations. If you can’t get this straightened out, then it will be impossible for me to reason with you. You also seem to be struggling with simple statistical concepts, and how they affect probable outcomes.

You confuse outliers with the common-place, and then you make that muddled thinking the core of your argument. Your cracker-barrel wisdom only goes so far. If you don’t know why Indians firing into bodies on the ground with government rifles is statistically insignificant, then I suggest you read (Or re-read) Fox’s Archaeology, History, and Custer’s Last Battle, especially Part Two.

This is not a personal contest between you and me; I really don’t want to deal with your inferiority complex. Let’s try and stay focused on why we are posting to this thread, and that is, to answer Mike Powell’s question: Did LSH suffere more heavily than other areas of the battlefield from souvenir hunting as years rolled by. If you can’t control the snide remarks, and you’re unable to think inductively, then I suggest that you address your comments to Mr. Powell directly, because I have no desire to discuss this question with a man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[AZ Ranger]

Mike

I guess to answer your original question you would need to know the total expended cartridges and then what percent remaining and compare this to other sites. In this case you can not do that:

There is no data showing how many unfired 45/55 were removed by the Indians. Therefore you can not know how many were fired.

Of the ones fired we don't who fired them.

Of the 87 45/55 cartridges found by Fox the data shows that they were fired from 69 different firearms. If I am reading the data correctly for 56 of these firearms they found only one cartridge case. Does this one case represent the trooper only fired once or did the Indian fire it once into the dead body.

Thousand of cartridge cases were removed before Fox got a shot at the disturbed Battlefield. Hedren in 1972 examined 1625 45/55 cases removed from the battlefield.

When looking at the archaeological value of the remaining finds at LBH, I think of Egyptian burial sites before and after being pilfered. The information obtained after being robbed is a lot less valuable as to accuracy of what was originally there.

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

How do we know that was not a .45/70 bullet? Crucial to understanding of the battle........

How do we know it wasn't fired by a Sioux the following February? Or in 1886?

We don't. Which is my point. Finding something in even an undisturbed state allows for different conclusions on how they got there. The bullet themselves were the same.

Fox never describes a 45/70 cartridge case being found. I find that hard to believe. Varnum would have to be 100 percent incorrect on whether there any rifle 45/70 cartridges used in the carbines. Were there no 45/70 rifles that would use the preferred powder charged cartridge for the rifle at LBH within the area looked at by Fox?

AZ Ranger

[Nomad]

Ranger,

You wrote: “Give me the figure for what was dropped by troopers with Custer's battalion and where you got that number for a starter”. Please re-read my post; I did not quote a specific number. I was explaining a process in general terms.

You wrote: “Considering Fox only found 87 45/55 cases and these were from 69 different carbines of which only 13 carbines had more than one 45/55 case found for a specific carbine, one should not draw to many conclusions from this.

In 1972 Hedren looked at 1,625 cases which must have been removed before Fox”.

There are dozens of realistic probabilities that can be drawn from this raw data.

You asked: “What type of seriation are you talking about frequency or contextual?” Did you GOOGLE this? Archaeologists are well versed with both methods; they are fundamental to the profession. I argued that using seriation, in conjunction with strata analysis “increase the probability of dating accuracy”. Contextual seriation deals with the matrix surrounding an artifact. Frequency seriation deals with the number of artifacts found across a horizontal plane within a single stratum. Based on the subject I discussed in my post of 11/ 18, which do you think I meant? Hint: Strata analysis deals with the matrix surrounding an artifact in a time column, across a horizontal plane.

You wrote: “This is a quote from Archaeological Insights into the Custer Battle on page 24 'In recording and collecting, we did not did not discriminate on the basis of period association, Prehistoric, battle-related, postbattle-related, and late historic artifacts were considered equally'”.

Your quote proves my point, and answers Mr. Powell’s question: Did LSH suffer more heavily than other areas of the battlefield from souvenir hunting as years rolled by?

The raw data, i.e., artifact counts, were statistically treated equally. According to your source, no significance was given to outlier episodes, e.g., Indians shooting at bodies lying on the ground, bullets fired from infantry rifles (.45/70), “bullets fired at different angles from the ground and with varying amount of energy”, “cartridge cases produced at the same time but placed at a later date”, “target practice from Fort Custer”, or, casings dropped by Indians, casings dropped by cavalry troopers, casings dropped by memorial firing squads, salting by park rangers. Since few of the artifact recovery operations were as well documented as the archaeological excavations were, it is impossible to know if more souvenir hunting took place at one location over another.

Thank you for your help Ranger.


Nomad



P.S. Don’t forget to answer the seriation question.