Post by Robert Braun on Nov 7, 2002 10:11:32 GMT -5
I watched the Discovery Channel's "Unsolved History" segment regarding "Custer's Last Stand" ...ooops.... BATTLE... and I couldn't refrain from commenting.
Two reasons. I've been to both the Little Big Horn Battlefield and Wisconsin Heights Battlefield this year. And now I have been subjected to the same archaeological litany--a lack of evidence means "no battle."
DNR sources have informed me that an archaeological review of Wisconsin Heights revealed very little in the way of relics. One of the possible answers, I was informed, was that the battle may not have been fought on that ground. Now in fairness, the DNR folks indicated that they didn't think that the archaeological assessment was accurate, based on a variety of sources. Among the sources was a land survey done not long after the battle, in which the surveyor clearly marked "battleground" on the survey map.
Unfortunately, that kind of enlightenment occasionally eluded the Discovery Channel's assessment of the Little Big Horn fight. The program essentially presented a blend of 15 year-old research and Jeffry D. Wert's 1996 book Custer: The Controversial Life of George Armstrong Custer (well...a few paragraphs of it) as if it was brand new material. AND it may well be brand-new to some viewers. But the fact that the digging, analysis and research transpired largely from 1983-1988 was largely glossed over. The fakey "digging" scenes presented appeared to give the viewers the sense that the work was still on-going, which, (a ranger told me) it is not-- at least not to the extent of the 1983-5 digs!
Further, the analysis done many years ago in tracing the movements of various shooters by the shell casing signatures did just that--- traced the movements. It did not attempt to either interpret or draw any sort of conclusion. (This is similar to motorists assuming that just because the left-hand turn indicator of the guy in front of them is on, that the motorist will be turning left!) In the DC program we are shown that two Army shooters are travelling from one defensive area to another; the activity is described as a "route" (with the implication that many more are 'routing' than these two.) Never was there an on-camera speculation that the direction might be the opposite--that the soldier may be moving in the OPPOSITE direction to reinforce the position! Conversely, the cartridge trail of two native shooters is presented, and described as a "pursuit." Now... if the movements of the two Army guys signifies a "route," why aren't the movements of two natives termed a "charge?"
We are shown only one long bone of an Army soldier measured, with the "possible" age as "17." We are shown one degenerated vertebra of an Army soldier, with a possible conclusion of back pain. Suddenly, the program's premise switches to indicate that Custer's entire command were not composed of "the nation's best Indian fighters" (DC's words) but instead were young, inexperienced, and in pain! [BTW, I'm looking into the old National Geographic issues published shortly after these skeletal finds---because I seem to recall the remains examined were from one and the same soldier!]
Most puzzling of all, we are told that there was no "last stand" on "Last Stand Hill." Why? Well... there's not enough cartridge casings to indicate a stand for any period of time!
Hmmm... Now why would there be cartridge casings found at say Keogh's Area, but only a very few found on Last Stand Hill? It wouldn't have anything to do with the SOUVENIR HUNTERS that scoured the LSH area for say three-quarters of a century would it?
And I won't even get into the Deep Ravine debacle!
The point is... every now and then archaeology is weighted too heavily or expected to determine too much for us. It must be balanced with other available information, other data, other chronology that may help explain or direct an explaination of events. "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence"--- just so with the archaeology done thus far at both Wisconsin Heights and "Last Stand Hill."
Happily, the Wisconsin DNR is willing to provide a more reserved and inclusive analysis, and a more open discussion of the WH action.
Two reasons. I've been to both the Little Big Horn Battlefield and Wisconsin Heights Battlefield this year. And now I have been subjected to the same archaeological litany--a lack of evidence means "no battle."
DNR sources have informed me that an archaeological review of Wisconsin Heights revealed very little in the way of relics. One of the possible answers, I was informed, was that the battle may not have been fought on that ground. Now in fairness, the DNR folks indicated that they didn't think that the archaeological assessment was accurate, based on a variety of sources. Among the sources was a land survey done not long after the battle, in which the surveyor clearly marked "battleground" on the survey map.
Unfortunately, that kind of enlightenment occasionally eluded the Discovery Channel's assessment of the Little Big Horn fight. The program essentially presented a blend of 15 year-old research and Jeffry D. Wert's 1996 book Custer: The Controversial Life of George Armstrong Custer (well...a few paragraphs of it) as if it was brand new material. AND it may well be brand-new to some viewers. But the fact that the digging, analysis and research transpired largely from 1983-1988 was largely glossed over. The fakey "digging" scenes presented appeared to give the viewers the sense that the work was still on-going, which, (a ranger told me) it is not-- at least not to the extent of the 1983-5 digs!
Further, the analysis done many years ago in tracing the movements of various shooters by the shell casing signatures did just that--- traced the movements. It did not attempt to either interpret or draw any sort of conclusion. (This is similar to motorists assuming that just because the left-hand turn indicator of the guy in front of them is on, that the motorist will be turning left!) In the DC program we are shown that two Army shooters are travelling from one defensive area to another; the activity is described as a "route" (with the implication that many more are 'routing' than these two.) Never was there an on-camera speculation that the direction might be the opposite--that the soldier may be moving in the OPPOSITE direction to reinforce the position! Conversely, the cartridge trail of two native shooters is presented, and described as a "pursuit." Now... if the movements of the two Army guys signifies a "route," why aren't the movements of two natives termed a "charge?"
We are shown only one long bone of an Army soldier measured, with the "possible" age as "17." We are shown one degenerated vertebra of an Army soldier, with a possible conclusion of back pain. Suddenly, the program's premise switches to indicate that Custer's entire command were not composed of "the nation's best Indian fighters" (DC's words) but instead were young, inexperienced, and in pain! [BTW, I'm looking into the old National Geographic issues published shortly after these skeletal finds---because I seem to recall the remains examined were from one and the same soldier!]
Most puzzling of all, we are told that there was no "last stand" on "Last Stand Hill." Why? Well... there's not enough cartridge casings to indicate a stand for any period of time!
Hmmm... Now why would there be cartridge casings found at say Keogh's Area, but only a very few found on Last Stand Hill? It wouldn't have anything to do with the SOUVENIR HUNTERS that scoured the LSH area for say three-quarters of a century would it?
And I won't even get into the Deep Ravine debacle!
The point is... every now and then archaeology is weighted too heavily or expected to determine too much for us. It must be balanced with other available information, other data, other chronology that may help explain or direct an explaination of events. "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence"--- just so with the archaeology done thus far at both Wisconsin Heights and "Last Stand Hill."
Happily, the Wisconsin DNR is willing to provide a more reserved and inclusive analysis, and a more open discussion of the WH action.