Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined

Rating:
Summary: Archaelogical Findings & Literary Research Are Fascinating
Review: After reading this book I only wish that I had read it before I visited the LBH this past September. Dr. Fox provides great detail to properly explain how the excavations and laboratory findings were done and in explaining what they mean. This detail is neccessary to understand Dr. Fox's explanation of what he thinks ocurred at Custer's battleridge. After reading the evidence first, then his well researched literary quotes, his conclusions on the Custer portion of the battle are very believable and fit well with the Indian oral histories. I found it very revealing and immensely stimulating. The early chapters may seem slow to someone who does not appreciate archaelogy but it picks up speed as Fox moves to his conclusion which is virtually a climax of the battle. I have reread several sections and it's a mainstay in my Custer library.

Rating:
Summary: Archaelogical Findings & Literary Research Are Fascinating
Review: After reading this book I only wish that I had read it before I visited the LBH this past September. Dr. Fox provides great detail to properly explain how the excavations and laboratory findings were done and in explaining what they mean. This detail is neccessary to understand Dr. Fox's explanation of what he thinks ocurred at Custer's battleridge. After reading the evidence first, then his well researched literary quotes, his conclusions on the Custer portion of the battle are very believable and fit well with the Indian oral histories. I found it very revealing and immensely stimulating. The early chapters may seem slow to someone who does not appreciate archaelogy but it picks up speed as Fox moves to his conclusion which is virtually a climax of the battle. I have reread several sections and it's a mainstay in my Custer library.

Rating:
Summary: How many shells are left at Gettysburg?
Review: Fox gives a compelling argument which takes some of the indisputable facts into account--bullets, bones, and other artifacts in the ground. Unfortunately, he attempts to posit a theory of battle movement and troop reactions based on these artifacts and the Sioux (et al) accounts (which are also difficult to reconcile). While I do not give the book just a single star such as our trial lawyer's review, I must echo his sentiments on the evidence being literally out of date! Fox discards any possibility that Native Americans picked up spent shells (which were easily reloaded), and ignores the fact that there were almost no complete cartridges recovered by his metal detection sweep. Practically, you could say the surviving combatants could more easily use complete cartridges than empty (reloadable) ones, but the possibility remains that both combatants and "tourists" of all time periods probably picked up empty shells for various reasons. I repeat my rhetorical question: How many shells are left on the ground at Gettysburg? There are also stories that .45-70 shells were also added to the Little Bighorn battlefield from re-enactments and historians bent on allowing visitors to find a "real" relic. In the long run, I disagree with Fox's overall flow of the battle, and prefer the more recent version by Skelnar. Still good reading and a worthwhile addition to the examination of the battlefield.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best books written on the subject
Review: I have read this book 3 times right through and at least 5 times on selected chapters. I cannot praise this book enough. If you read this book and "Custers Last Campaign" by John S Gray you will have the complete picture of the Battle from an Archaelogical and a Time and Motion Study.

Rating:
Summary: Well written book, no matter what you think.
Review: I think the polarisation of the reviews here tells the whole story. You are either going to love this book or hate it. Those who favour the revisionist view will love it, and those who like the accepted, "historical" image of Custer's Last Stand are going to hate it.

So let me help you to figure out whether you want this book or not. For me there should be a middle ground. You can disagree -- but you have to admire the scholarship and the effort. Fox clearly stands on his own -- a "blazed pine in a clearing of Custer devotees" (to paraphrase James Fenmore Cooper).

In a nutshell, Fox's thesis is that there WAS no last stand. He took advantage of the burndown that occured some years back to get in there with metal detectors. He undertook a minute forensic examination of the battlefield. For Fox, the evidence seemed to suggest a rout. Were there to have been a last stand, one would have expected multiple shell casings from a given gun in a given firing position. In fact, he could find no evidence of this. What he did find was shell casings from the same gun in positions that suggested the individual firing the gun was "vectoring" -- i.e. constantly on the move. The image is of a group of men running, stopping briefly to fire over their shoulders, and then moving on. This is but one of dozens of examples he gives.

As with any evidence, it is open to interpretation. And people will always disagree. But agree or disagree with Fox, the reason the book HAS to get four stars and not one, is that it is so well written, so persuasively written. I do not believe a book earns a one star review because it advances a thesis that may be incorrect. For me? I have to say the jury is still out.

Yet Fox is persuasive not only because of the archeological evidence, but because he relies quite heavily upon the oral tradition handed down by the aboriginal fighters who were present that day.

I find it amusing that certain of Fox's detractors actually purport to RELY on the oral evidence. For generations the accepted view of the battle completely IGNORED the oral historical evidence. And, indeed, the preponderance of this evidence favours Fox's view. One has to decide for oneself whether there is credence to be given to the oral histories -- I am not so sure how much credence should be given.

Fox also analyses then current manuals of combat to try and figure out how Custer's men would have fought and stationed themselves -- and again, he makes this evidence neatly fit his hypothesis.

Now, we have to be careful about something here. Fox at no time questions the heroism of the men involved in this struggle -- though Custer's command performance clearly ranks up there with the top dumb ... performances of all time -- but his men were brave, fought valiantly and died heroically.

So, if you absolutely LOVE the accepted view of Custer -- be preared for a rough ride. But if you have an open mind and are ready for an extremely interesting, but rough, ride buy this book.

And, one foot note - something that has always saddenly me is the treatment doled out by history to Major Reno and Captain Benteen. These guys DID conduct a displined, last ditch defence. And did so dug into a hillside for THREE days. There is no debate about this at ALL. They were down to throwing rocks at their tormentors when the Souix suddenly pulled out. Yet such was Custer's luster, that Reno was branded a coward for NOT going to his commander's aid -- even though that was clearly impossible. He was originally buried in a paurer's grave. Scandalous. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT MAJOR RENO?

Rating:
Summary: An excellent study
Review: I wouldn't call this the definitive work on the battle of the Little Bighorn. A novice to the battle might be a little overwhelmed, but it is agreed among most students that Fox made a few mistakes. Biggest one: he had Captain Yates leading a battalion far north to the so-called "Ford D," to round up the Indian women and children. This is based on very slim evidence. While most think that Yates or some other officer did lead some men a little north of Custer Hill, perhaps or perhaps not to snap up the women and children, it is believed that he did not go very far and that there were probably no fatalities. Fox claims the body of Mark Kellogg was found near Ford D, but this is surely incorrect. All the firsthand accounts I have read clearly point to the vicinity of Deep Ravine as the spot where Kellogg's corpse was discovered.

Furthermore, Fox relies rather heavily on the Indian accounts collected by Dr. Marquis. This is unfortunate because it has been demonstrated that Marquis padded his account of Wooden Leg with the experiences of other men (crediting them to Wooden Leg), and also doctored the Indian accounts to fit his own preconceived notions of the battle, i.e. fictionalizing them. The Marquis interviews should only be used with extreme caution.

He also believes that most of the Indian casualties were suffered on the southern end of the battle, and that the soldiers on Custer Hill and the South Skirmish Line barely fought at all. I think Gregory Michno has disproven this theory --- most Indian casualties occurred in the northern area of the battlefield. This matter, though, is a subject of much contention that has yet to be resolved.

To anyone seriously interested in the Little Bighorn, I would also recommend Gregory Michno's "Lakota Noon" as a counterbalance. Neither Fox's nor Michno's books are perfect, but both are necessary reading for a real understanding of the battle. Don't forget, of course, the firsthand accounts by the people who were there. The Little Bighorn is a very heavily documented battle, and here on Amazon you can find many collections of primary sources. I would particularly recommend the collections of Walter Camp's interviews.

Rating:
Summary: This is Terrible History
Review: Several months ago, after I wrote my first review, I came into contact with the author, Dr. Fox, by email and we had a very informative and enjoyable debate. In the course of it, he succeeded in convincing me that the majority of Indian casualties had occurred in the southern area of the battlefield (in my earlier review I said that I thought most died in the northern), although I stand by the rest of my objections outlined in my previous review. In Fox's defense, though, I was a little harsh when I spoke of the alleged movements of Yates to Ford D as the "biggest mistake." Although I think he is wrong in taking Yates so far, nevertheless I believe he is right that Yates did make some kind of movement north, and to his credit Fox was the first, or one of the first, to realize that such a movement had taken place, however far it went.

I'd like to echo my earlier recommendations. Although Fox told me he has a low opinion of Michno's "Lakota Noon," nevertheless I like it and think it is a useful counterbalance to "Archaeology, History and Custer's Last Battle." So far as interpretation of the battle goes, Fox and Michno in general represent two different "schools" of thought about how the Little Bighorn played out, and they are both worth reading for that reason.

Rating:
Summary: A must read for any Little Big Horn buff!!
Review: This book is one of the best I have read concerning the Little big Horn, and I have read many. Fox approaches the battle in a systematic way, first detailing skirmish tactics of the period, and then examines soldiers behavior in stressful combat situations. He then uses this information along with his archaeological findings to arrive at logical conclusions.
Some of the middle chapters that detail the actual digging at specific locations are somewhat dry, but hang with it and you will be well rewarded in the later chapters.
Nice maps and aerial photos throughout: you won't be disappointed!

Rating:
Summary: How many shells are left at Gettysburg?
Review: This is an update on my previous review. I recently took a two-day tour of the LBH with Fox and former Superintendent Jim Court and reading the text before the tour was very helpful. Aside from the archeology that determine that the Sioux and Cheyenne were well armed with at least 200 repeaters, the key to the mystery of what happened to Custer and his battalion(s) takes place at Medicine Trail Coulee. Some historians say that Custer was repelled and forced to retreat, others say he was shot at he ford putting the attack into confusion and early historians thought the ford was at the center of the village and that he had to move further downstream. Fox's theory is that the main population had already fled north thus "no one was home" other than the warriors fighting Reno and a few that happened to be at the ford. Thus Custer moves further north to cut them off leaving a rear guard on Calhoun Hill (south battle ridge) possibly for Benteen to connect. Fox essentially believes Custer was still on the offensive and confident when the high influx of warriors began to fracture his spread command. As Fox pointed our on the tour the lack of headstones near the ford and the ridges east of it indicate that there was not any significant loss of casualties which helps support his theory that Custer was still on the offensive and not retreating. The latter would seem to make sense to anyone at the battlefield since Custer's commands are spread far apart and not in a defensive perimeter. May not be the final theory but a very reasonable possibility and very thought provoking.

Rating:
Summary: Quite possibly the definitive work on Little Big Horn.
Review: While I doubt that many Custerphiles and Little Big Horn enthusiasts will agree with me, this book may well be thedefinitive work on the Battle of the Little Big Horn. It starts with a summary of the results of Fox's 1984 archaeological investigations conducted at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. After reviewing his methodology, Fox examines standard U.S. Cavalry tactics of the Plains Indian War period. Using tactical doctrine as the framework for his discussion, Fox examines the archaeological evidence discovered at the battlefield to arrive at some very startling and novel conclusions about the development of George Armstrong Custer's last battle. The evidence Fox musters is impressive, and his reasoning so cogent and persuasive, that it is clear that any writer attempting to explain the course of the Battle of the Little Big Horn ignores this work at his/her peril.