|
|
Post by culpeper on Sept 20, 2019 10:26:29 GMT -5
Keogh
This is your conundrum...
"It was the third or fourth crescent shaped curve [of the river] below the [Reno retreat] ford."
What were the third and the fourth crescent loops at that time? Regardless, it will be one of two possible sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 20, 2019 10:43:03 GMT -5
Hi folks. I hope you and the discussion are well.... a deep well, perhaps. I'd like to mention a couple of things. Irrigation - there are long defined techniques for irrigation ditch digging. They designed the Reno Canal irrigation ditch and from that irrigation ditches run willy nilly across pots of land. The countours were utilised to route ditches deep enough into the water table to run.......... water from the canal ditch. Fertile li'l buggers those ditch diggers were. I'm researching them. It's an irrigation ditch along the lines... hehe.... outlined by culpeper. Good man. Well, here we are again with the Reno Fight's skirmish position and I say this. The artifacts in the loop of the Pitsch Farm, if they were battle artifacts - were on the East of the river when they were deposited. There is absolutely no doubt what at al so ever, that what is now a dry loop was in 1876, 1877 and for years later; a wet bend of the flowing river. The Pitsch finds were 'east' of the river when left in 1876. Scott did not pick up on this. It's all right though because there was a humdinger of a fight, east of the river on thhat loop when the Ree and Crow scouts made their stand against the Sioux and Cheyennes. There should be a monument there. The live loop in 1877.Barry photographed it in 1886. It was photographed in the 1900's and I believe in the 1930's as being a flowing river loop. The loop was blocked off in what looks like land reclamation. Until that reality disseminates into study of the Reno fight terrain, then we are all like poodle's wetting bark. Ooooh, lookI am very grateful to be for the map showing the river loop active in 1876. link As ever, you are a star. An AZR star. Here we go loop dee loop, here we go loop dee........ Ta Da. I give you 'Ree Stand Loop Bed.  The idea of this Otter Bed position originated with Brininstool in the 1930's and with some maps which he provided to Charles Kuhlman, the theory was born and brought to us in 1951 with Legend in History. W.A. Graham gave pertinent comment on this theorizing by the pair and cautioned against it in erstwhile fashion in his forward discussion of the battle. Linked - 'Quote "Dr. Kuhlman, author of "Legend into History," who has explored the terrain many times and knows it thoroughly, has expressed the opinion that the ravine or coulee referred to is the one shown on the Geological Survey's map to be located slightly to the south and east of the Garryowen loop. If he i... " page xii - links to the relevant.You will struggle with fred (Wagner) unless you have the roots of his misnomers. You end up in flooded ditches of data. All irrelevant since try as he might to sell the idea, he was not there in 1876. Gigging into the 'Art of Irrigating' Little Bighorn valley. August 17, 1938 When R.S. Ellison(Walter M. Camp collection), E.A. Brininstool, Fred Dustin and Charles Kuhlman, mark the spot where Reynolds fell - three tenths of a mile south of Garryowen on highway No. 87. Read more: thelbha.proboards.com/thread/1540/charley-reynolds#ixzz605I2b9I9 |
|
|
|
Post by culpeper on Sept 20, 2019 11:56:55 GMT -5
Oh no, the dry river bed east of Wagner's brow was the flowing LBH River during the battle?
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 20, 2019 16:58:20 GMT -5
Here's a view of the loop from 1901 oregondigital.org/catalog/oregondigital:df711g848Now, if you were Reno, with your perimeter shrinking into Wagner's brow........ and you (as Reno) are positively certain that resistance is futile and you want to get up a hill on the other side of the river (the one saw Custer ride over) then, how would you get there? oregondigital.org/catalog/oregondigital:df711g99woregondigital.org/catalog/oregondigital:df711g58nWith regard to Reynolds demise, Girard was present and unfortunately offers the best evidence which, as soon as you dive in to it begins tying knots with terrain data. Here's his RCoI transcript at Wisconsin. They gave him a hard time because he was sat in the middle of the river with Reno, drinking whiskey, as the battalion crossed over Ford A. |
|
|
|
Post by keogh on Sept 21, 2019 0:13:51 GMT -5
Keogh This is your conundrum... "It was the third or fourth crescent shaped curve [of the river] below the [Reno retreat] ford." What were the third and the fourth crescent loops at that time? Regardless, it will be one of two possible sites. No real conundrum here culpeper. According to the 1891 US Geological Survey map of the valley, the 3rd crescent shaped curve of the river below the Reno retreat ford is the Garryowen Bend of the LBH River. The Reno timber fight took place on the south side of the Garryowen Bend. garryowen, keogh |
|
|
|
Post by keogh on Sept 21, 2019 0:18:25 GMT -5
Bill I went to that page and could not find the reference to Uncovering History. Using the find function Scott does not appear on that page. There is no problem with a battle site and a dump site. What I am sure of is that they did not police the brass and place it in a dump site. Regards Steve When I get the time I will go back and take a look in that thread. I can clearly recall our having a direct discussion on that very topic last year in that very thread. I agree with you that no one likely policed the area and placed it in a dump site. I don't believe Doug Scott ever claimed to have found any brass cartridges in that location -- certainly not in the ridiculous numbers Jason Pitsch would later claim to find there -- claims that were never substantiated. garryowen, keogh |
|
|
|
Post by keogh on Sept 21, 2019 0:30:35 GMT -5
Oh no, the dry river bed east of Wagner's brow was the flowing LBH River during the battle? Gerard says [the] depression was in [the] timber in 1876 but no water happened to be there then. When we saw it in 1909 there had probably been a rain or possibly it had been filled with irrigation water, as the field is irrigated. When I was there last year the field was overflown with water. |
|
|
|
Post by moderator on Sept 21, 2019 1:05:03 GMT -5
Here are the published views of archaeologist Doug Scott's views on the Reno timber site from his book Uncovering History:
From Archaeologist Doug Scott's book Uncovering History on page 57-59, my comments in brackets:
Other .45-70 cases were recovered in the areas Vaughn identifies as Reno's 2nd skirmish line [on the western perimeter of the Vaughn timber site], the [Vaughn] timber area [itself], and a large number [of cases found] on the land circumscribed [surrounding] the abandoned river meander [ie. the dry river bank or bench]. At least 17 [cases] were recovered there [see Scott's relic map on p. 60 to see he is referring to the Vaughn timber site here]. They are clustered, suggesting a tactical disintegration occurred here, which is consistent with Reno's disorganized retreat from the timber. However, the possibility of Indian use of captured army guns is also a feasible alternative to consider.
The artifacts found in the vicinity of the [Vaughn's] 2nd skirmish line [on the western edge of the Vaughn timber site] and in the presumed [Vaughn] timber area are also clustered [again, refer to Scott's relic map on p. 60]. One location of numerous cartridge cases and other artifacts found by Mr. Pitsch was along a slough [ie. the alleged Pitsch timber site] that was [unfortunately] disturbed by heavy equipment in recent years. The perimeter of this area was mapped, but not individual artifact locations. If this is the timber fight area, and if Vaughn and others are correct that the so-called Garryowen bend [or Loop] was an active channel of the battle, then Reno's timber fight area was protected by the river on two sides. This may shed some light on comments by the witnesses at the Reno Court of Inquiry that the timber area was defensible, suggesting a skirmish line could be extended from river bank to river bank. [Note: this deployment is only possible at the Vaughn timber site. The Pitsch location, being 700 yards long, is simply too large for the size of Reno's command to deploy on from river bank to river bank.]
Concerning Scott's conclusions on what he calls the Pitsch slough:
A significant departure from the expected patterning [in other words, he references here some unexpected relic patterning] is that of the firearm parts. About 30 items were mapped, in which all but 4 were found in and around a slough or abandoned river meander [the dry bench around the Pitsch site that Pitsch and his supporters claim was the location of the Reno timber fight]. . This [Pitsch] slough is situated on the north edge of Reno's retreat line and about midway between the Hunkpapa village site and the retreat crossing. [Note: Scott identifies the Pitsch timber site as being simply a location along the north edge of Reno's retreat line out of the valley.] The clustering [of artifacts found at the Pitsch slough] is made up of a variety of firearm parts, including many Colt and Springfield army weapon parts. Also intermingled in significant quantities are older gun parts as well as others that suggest an Indian association. While the deposit [of these relics at the Pitsch slough] may reflect an immediate post-battle clean-up and firearm destruction effort, it is equally possible that the deposit post-dates the battle by a year or more. In any case, such a disparate deposit of dissimilar gun parts suggests intentional disassembly of the weapons. This [deposit of relics found at the Pitsch slough] most likely occurred when the press of battle was not imminent. [In other words, much of the relics found on the Pitsch slough -- reference the Bonafede relic map -- were due to an after battle dump site, which is logical considering it was the likely location of the 7th Cavalry's campsite on June 27 & 28th.]
It is possible that Mr. Pitsch's linear alignment of finds is the result of where he looked as opposed to a total artifact pattern. However, the lack of finds by other collectors (e.g. J. W. Vaughn) beyond the area in which Mr. Pitsch made his finds makes it unlikely the pattern is completely fortuitous. Assuming the pattern [of relic finds] represents a near approximation of the [Reno] retreat route then the correlation with the historic record is excellent, and generally follows that postulated by [Jerome] Greene (1986) during his earlier relic find assessment efforts. [Hence, Doug Scott's assessment is that the relics found at the Pitsch site, besides those dumped there after the battle, "represents a near approximation of the [Reno] retreat route" out of the valley.]
Reference Scott's relic map on page 60 to see the number of battle related artifacts found at the Vaughn timber site compared to those found at the Pitsch site.
garryowen,
keogh
|
|
|
|
Post by culpeper on Sept 22, 2019 9:13:27 GMT -5
Now, I'm confused. There is the Vuaghn timber, the Pitsch timber, and the east bend timber closest to the bluffs?
|
|
|
|
Post by culpeper on Sept 22, 2019 9:22:12 GMT -5
Here is Vaughn's map with his theory shown. It clearly shows Otter Creek and would have been drawn before a lot on modern flood control structure were in place. What is interesting is that Vaughn places the Reynolds death site outside the Pitsch timber site. Vaughn spent a few days in the fall of 1964. So Jason Pitsch was not even born ( FBI states Jason was 41 in May 2012 so birth date around 1971) at that the time Vaughn published his book in 1966. Regards Benteeneast I don't like Reynolds coming out of the Pitsch timber westerly like that. Makes more sense if he left easterly from Vuaghn timber. Unfortunately, the man's death site creates problems. But I think everyone is okay with his site? Correct? |
|
|
|
Post by benteeneast on Sept 22, 2019 9:23:53 GMT -5
CP
That's why we are here. I for one enjoy the controversy because I don't have to resolve any of this as a work product. This for me has no real game changing difference. So my bottom line is that I trust Scott's opinion on the location.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by culpeper on Sept 22, 2019 9:34:29 GMT -5
I'm getting into it as well.  |
|
|
|
Post by benteeneast on Sept 22, 2019 10:19:07 GMT -5
Bill
My problem with Vaughn's site is the lack of artifacts. Every thing he found could be Indians including carbines they had accumulated. I would expect that the Reno's battalion deposited hundreds of cases and some live rounds. At just an average of 10 rounds each would place 800-1000 cases on the ground.
I think when the line turned because they were flanked it was a signal that the Indians were not just blocking the village and they were on offense. Time to pick up the rate of shots fired which is what the Pitsch Site indicates.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by benteeneast on Sept 22, 2019 10:25:31 GMT -5
Here is Vaughn's map with his theory shown. It clearly shows Otter Creek and would have been drawn before a lot on modern flood control structure were in place. What is interesting is that Vaughn places the Reynolds death site outside the Pitsch timber site. Vaughn spent a few days in the fall of 1964. So Jason Pitsch was not even born ( FBI states Jason was 41 in May 2012 so birth date around 1971) at that the time Vaughn published his book in 1966. Regards Benteeneast I don't like Reynolds coming out of the Pitsch timber westerly like that. Makes more sense if he left easterly from Vuaghn timber. Unfortunately, the man's death site creates problems. But I think everyone is okay with his site? Correct? Westerly is the best place to ride a horse at speed. Reno came out onto the flats. I guess riding a horse under fire through trees and questionable footing seems a good reason to me to exit west the same as the first company did. I do have a problem with exiting the "Vaughn site" and riding back into "Pitsch site". I am sure Reynolds was well mounted and could ride with an independent seat. Regards Steve |
|
|
|
Post by keogh on Sept 22, 2019 11:02:03 GMT -5
Westerly is the best place to ride a horse at speed. Reno came out onto the flats. I guess riding a horse under fire through trees and questionable footing seems a good reason to me to exit west the same as the first company did. This is an interesting theory, but I don't believe there is any primary source evidence to suggest that any of Reno's 3 companies exited the timber in a westerly direction (away from their line of retreat), then circled around. Its a rather bold stretch made by proponents of the Pitsch site in an effort to explain the the otherwise inexplicable location of the Reynold's marker. Who has ever claimed that any of Reno's men exited the Vaughn timber site and then rode back into the Pitcsh slough? Such a route for the retreat from the valley makes no sense whatsoever. garryowen, keogh |
|
