So getting back to Custer, I have a question about Little big horn, I'm really struggling with exactly what happened at this particular battle. I've read a few books that quite clearly lay down the events of that day, most books will state that they are basing their timeline of the battle on past witness statements and archaeological excavations. The problem that I have is that I have read numerous reports from various archaeologists that claim that there is no accurate archaeological evidence to support a lot of the claims made by various authors and historians. The last article I read stated '"Certainly there is (no) archaeological evidence of a swirling, furious finale to the Custer battle - no famous last stand.", I also watched a documentary on the Discovery Channel where archaeologist Douglas Scott argued that Little big horn was like a crime scene, and that bullets and cartridges could show with certainty where Custer was, and where the Indians were. It could also show the skirmish lines and the movements of the troopers.
Now, the problem is, that other archaeologists have stepped forward and they are now saying and I quote ' The battle had happened 108 years earlier. Works had been done to build a visitor centre, a monument and the markers of the troopers. The whole topography had changed : some ravines were deeper and even the Little Bighorn river had changed because of the rain and the snow.
Worse, the battlefield hadn't been protected at all. In 1881, soldiers and Indians made a re-enactment of the battle on the battlefield itself. They fired bullets and recreated the fight. Their bullets, cartridges and steps were spread all over the battlefield.
Even worse, "relic hunters" had stolen a considerable amount of cartridges and bullets. Their main target was, of course, the legendary hill where Custer had died. Some accounts said that in Deep Ravine, which wasn't a main point of the battlefield, more than 1'000 bullets had been stolen. This stealing's happened daily, from 1876 to 1984. No Little Bighorn superintendent ever tried to stop them. In 1940, the superintendent just wrote in his diary that stealing's were happening.
Thousands of cartridges disappeared. The whole battlefield was "contaminated", as it is said in the Crime Scene Investigation. Little Bighorn could never be considered as a crime scene. But Richard Fox, Douglas Scott and their archaeologists worked as if it were the case. In his books, Fox said that relic hunting happened, but he wrote only a few lines on them. The fact that thousands of bullets and cartridges had disappeared didn't matter much to the archaeologist.
There is also the issue of Indian testimonies, one article that I read claims, Indian testimonies can be used if they are put in a timeline according to the movements of the witnesses and their location : the battle began with Reno in the woods, then Custer in Medicine Tail Coulee, then the battle on the ridges and hills. Indian testimonies (we have hundreds of them) clearly concord that Custer's movements were these : a skirmish near the river and on the hill (Nye Cartwright Ridge), and then an hotly contested battle, with many skirmish lines, all long the hills. Indian told searchers that many of their charges (White Bull's, Low Dog's, Rain In the Face's, Two Moon's) failed because of the hot fire. Some even said that they had doubts about the outcome of the entire fight (Sitting Bull).
Then Lame White Man arrived and charged the soldiers, breaking the lines of Custer's left wing. Soldiers on the rear guard were killed, the others ran away towards Custer Hill (aka Last Stand Hill). Then Gall and Crazy Horse charged Calhoun Hill and the Keogh area, breaking the lines. During all these charges, the fight was hot, and the resistance of the soldier was simply heroic. It was a hand-to-hand battle with soldiers making stands all over the field. Captain Keogh, for example, was found in the middle of his men, with five dead Indian horses around him.
As anyone that even has a passing interest in Custer and Little big horn is aware, the last stand is the name given to the fight where Custer lost his life. The problem is that there are those 'experts' that are arguing that the last stand either did or didn't happen or that it didn't happen the way we have been told it happened.
The archaeologist Dr Fox for example argues that there was no 'Last stand' and that there were no heroics involved, moreover Dr Fox claims that he had rediscovered forgotten Indian accounts of the battle, and a previously unknown Indian map of the engagement,'.
So after my long post, my question is what is the accepted authentic timeline of the battle and which historian/archaeologist do people place their faith in when it comes to telling the story of LBH.