 • Buy this item from our featured Merchant - Featured Price: $24.95
 |
Product Reviews:
Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined |
Rating: 5 (out of 5)
Summary: Little Big Horn
Comments: This is the best analysis of the Little Big Horn Battle that I have read. It takes away almost all of the "hear say" evidence which has been passed along by historians as fact. I would highly endorse this book to any serious history student. I have purchased several copies for the historians in my family because I wouldn't dare part with my own personal copy. |
Rating: 2 (out of 5)
Summary: Mistakes
Comments: I do admire the work and dedication he put into this book and work however some of the Indian testimony he gives for the purpose of backing his claim of no last stand is suspect. For e Indian testimony he gives that say there was no last stand and the fight was short I can find and give at least 3 different Indian testimony that says that their was a last stand and the men gave their lives dearly. New evidence points to somewhere around 250 warriors losing their lives which is a close to a1for1ratio which would mean some intense fighting. He also talks about not many shells or casings around last stand hill however he fails to mention up into at least the late 1960's people were free to pick up souveniers on the site (Bullets and shell casings) and many people did. I have read1historian account on1afternoon in the early 1960's a couple of friends purchased up over a hundred ( I do not remember the exact number however I saying a hundred because I know the number was actually higher) because he has tried purchaseing some from these guys for a long time. He also fails to mention they have also put a park road in and they also put some kind of water tank in and had to dig up the ground to put that in. Keeping inmind of tourists being able to pick up shells for so long where do you think they are going to go to do this. Of course last stand Hill. Mr Fox's conclusions of not finding many shell or shell casings there have to be taken in context. I just find it disappointing he never mentions any of this. When this 1st came out he received awards from the battlefield. Now though after some historians have came out with other books such as James Donavaon, Skelnar,Michino and have called his findings into questions and have given much better evidence to dispute foxes claims and pointing out a lot more Indian testimony does not jive with Foxes conclusions the Battlefied is kind of distancing themselves from Foxes work especially about Last Stand Hill and what happened there. |
Rating: 5 (out of 5)
Summary: Great work
Comments: I had no real interest in Custer and the Battle until recently traveling to the Battle site. After that I was hooked !! I had to understand what really happened there!! I ordered3books on the subject and found this1to be the almost all logical, well researched and complete description of the event.I have no backgroung in archeology however as a soldier with combat experience. I understand what the author describes as stability/desinigration in combat and how it effects the outcome!! This is not an easy read!! As others have said the maps and diagrams could be better. However I tend to believe the author stayed with the facts and has given us the almost all factual account of what really took place at the Little Big Horn. |
Rating: 1 (out of 5)
Summary: A Disappointing tome
Comments: This book is a perfect case of prejudging history and 'bending' facts to fit said prejudgment. The entire concept of doing archeological analysis on a looted site and using said analysis to draw serious conclusions about a 133 year old battle is questionable at best, dishonest at worst. The selective interpretations of the indian accounts is also a grave error in this book. I found this book useful as an example of how 'not' to treat the battle of the little bighorn. If a Custer supporter had attemnpted this kind of nonsense, he would have been pilloried. |
Rating: 3 (out of 5)
Summary: Difficult read
Comments: While I agree with almost all of the author's conclusions, I will say it was written in a disjointed and hard to read style. typical "academic" professorial book. dry, wordy, and it went off on tangets about the virtues of archaeology vs oral tradition that had little to do with the subject.
The author was loose with what he considered "Facts", and took the tiniest shred of evidence that supported his conclusions to be solid facts, while anything against it was shot down.
The fact is, we will never understand exactly what happened that day. The author makes some brilliant guesses, however then irritates the reader by considering them facts to build the rest of his case on. The almost all glaring problem I saw was using Indian accounts to "prove" Custer rode on to the second ford, then returned and hung out on Cemetery hill for an hour or two. Nothing really definitively supports this either way, and the author should admit its only his guess as to what happened. The book gives some great insight to what happened, it just needs to be written in a better flowing style, and those things that can not be proven need to be stated as such. |
