Historical Archaeology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 92–103 | Cite as

The post-civil war Battlefield Pattern: An example from the Custer Battlefield

  • Richard A. FoxJr.
  • Douglas D. Scott


Battlefield Pattern analyses define the spatial and temporal aspects of a battle. The pattern is made up of individual and unit behaviors. Battlefield Pattern analyses test hypotheses regarding the progress of a battle. Gross patterns are defined as the spatial aspect of behavior. Dynamic patterns are defined as analytical techniques that can identify participant movement. Recent historical archaeological investigations at Custer Battlefield National Monument illustrate this process. Battlefield Pattern analyses provide an initial step in defining the archaeological aspect of warfare within broader anthropological contexts.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Army and Navy Journal 1876 Editorial. Army and Navy Journal 22 July:805.Google Scholar
  2. DuMont, John S. 1974 Custer Battle Guns. Old Army Press, Fort Collins.Google Scholar
  3. Dyer, Gwynne 1983 War. Crown, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Fox, Richard A., Jr. 1988 History as Seen through Archeology: The Custer Battle. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.Google Scholar
  5. Gould, Richard A. 1983 The Archaeology of War: Wrecks of the Spanish Armada of 1588 and the Battle of Britain, 1940. Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard A. Gould, pp. 105–143. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  6. Graham, W. A. 1953 The Custer Myth: A Source Book in Custeriana. Bonanza Books, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Hammer, Kenneth 1976 Custer in 76: Walter Camp’s Notes on the Custer Fight. Brigham Young University Press, Provo.Google Scholar
  8. Hatcher, Julian, Frank J. Jury, and Jac Weller 1977 Firearms Identification, Investigation and Evidence. Stackpole, Harrisburg.Google Scholar
  9. Haynes, C. Vance 1989 Geomorphological Investigations in Deep Ravine. In Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn, by Douglas D. Scott, Richard A. Fox, Jr., Melissa A. Connor, and Dick Harmon, pp. 224–242. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  10. King, W. Kent 1980 Tombstones for Bluecoats: New Insights into the Custer Mystery. W. Kent King, Marion Station, California.Google Scholar
  11. Kuhlman, Charles 1951 Legend into History. Stackpole, Harrisburg.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, Kenneth E. 1984 The American Frontier: An Archeological Study of Settlement Patterns and Process. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Moore, Mike 1985 Letter to Brian Pohanka, 29 July 1985 (with 10 maps). Ms. on file with authors.Google Scholar
  14. Nichols, Ron 1983 Reno Court of Inquiry Transcript. Ms. on file, Custer Battlefield National Monument, Crow Agency, Montana.Google Scholar
  15. NoËl Hume, Ivor 1969 Historical Archaeology. Alfred Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Scott, Douglas D., and Richard A. Fox, Jr. 1987 Archaeological Insights into the Custer Battle, An Assessment of the 1984 Field Season. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  17. Scott, Douglas D., Richard A. Fox, Jr., Melissa A. Connor, and Dick Harmon 1989 Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  18. South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Taunton, Francis B. 1986 Custer’s Field: “A Scene of Sickening Ghastly Horror.” The Johnson–Taunton Military Press, London.Google Scholar
  20. Upton, Emory 1874 Cavalry Tactics. D. Appleton, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Historical Archaeology 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. FoxJr.
    • 1
  • Douglas D. Scott
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.Midwest Archeological CenterNational Park ServiceLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations