There are many elements of the 1863 images that could have supported either proposal, but ultimately one major issue that could derail both.
There appear to be the correct landscape features seen from the field, looking northeast toward the Thompson house. Structures that appear faintly in the right hand distance of the "Field Where General Reynolds Fell" image, look enough like the Thompson house and a structure on the opposite side of the Chambersburg Pike to be convincing. There appears to be an orchard, also on that south side, running on a diagonal of the downward slope, all where they should be, but...
Detail, showing structures on horizon, and orchard on slope?
Rail fence dividing fields, runs across bottom.
Even the slight rise and fall of the foreground of that same image, when viewed in stereo, can be attributable to what appears to be a significant grading of the middle of the field, supported by contour lines in the "Warren" map of 1868, that are dramatically changed by the 1995 USGS surveys. A ditch that feeds a pond below the site, not notated in 1868, has also altered the terrain. But...
Right hand side of stereo pair.
Detail of 1868 Warren map. Red dot between McPherson's Woods and
trees on Seminary Ridge, indicates my theorized camera location.
Overlay of detail from Warren map over 1995 USGS map, indicating
seeming changes in contours of field between ridges, with dates in red.
Click this and all images for larger viewing.
Unaltered detail from the 1995 USGS topographic map.
The real concern for mine, and Scott Hartwig's theories, may very well be in the left hand horizon tree line on Oak Ridge, which does not appear to have been as deep as it is today, at least not by the time of the 1868 Warren surveys. It is the assumed strength of that woodline being there in 1863 that both Scott and myself placed our bets. Today, a gap shown in the Warren map has grown in, on the north ridge extension, along the rail cut. Were there trees there in 1863, but deforested by 1868? That is a tough call. Other maps are not so precise. Someone out there should know this information. They do not look to be dissimilar today with what appears in the 1863 photograph. On the other hand, the gap may not have caused a discernible difference visually at a 466 yard distance. Height of trees and density are all unknown factors. Coincidental, if not the same location? Perhaps?
Detail of map #12 from Warren's 1868 map set. Location of gap in trees on Oak Ridge
is indicated in red. Red dot marks proposed camera position for Gardner/O'Sullivan.
Full map set in the collection of National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Closer view of the trees on Oak Ridge from a location closer to the
orchard on the south side of Chambersburg Pike, approximately
150 yards north east of suspected 1863 camera position.
Modern aerial view, indicating in red, the wartime gap in the trees on Oak Ridge.
Would the gap have effected the 1863 view? Very strange how the modern and
1863 image in question seem to align in numerous ways. Is this the deciding factor?
This, primarily, and perhaps other challenges to the theorized location, warrant further scrutiny.
11 comments:
John - one thing I noticed, the pitch in the roof line appears to be steeper in the modern photo of Lee's HQ than it is in the original image. Of course, that could be due to new rafters being installed since . . . don't know. The imperfection of the original photo could also have distorted that pitch I suppose. Nonetheless, its an interesting theory. With your research talents and knowledge, you should be a relic hunter/metal detectorist. I'm confident you'd be quite successful.
Richard,
Thanks for commenting. The Thompson house burned at one point, leaving the walls intact, but the roof was altered with the addition of dormers, expanding the second floor. The pitch may appear off, as you indicate, by lens distortion and/or the angle and distance/elevation photographed.
Regarding relic hunting, I have done my share, initially in the 1970s, but get frustrated easily when digging too many nails. My wife and I get out occasionally, and she loves it. She also has far better luck than I do. One thing she finds with relative ease is Sharps carbine bullets! It does not matter if they are Union, Confederate, dropped, fired, melted or carved, she finds them. Even one in her parent's front yard, near Bealeton.
"get frustrated easily when digging too many nails."
Yes, the nails will definitely fool even the newer detectors. It is quite frustrating, do doubt. Your wife must have the "gift!"
John,
First off, great set of articles. However I do have a question and it may fall under the "stupid question" heading, but I thougt that with all period photos to see them as they were really seen you had to flip the image. I am sure you have already thougth of this and as I write this I think about other photos taken around the same time and they do not need to be flipped...
Just a thought though...when I did it to the picture you claim shows the Thompson house I think it looks like McPhearson's woods in the background...but I base this on many photos online and sadly only one trip to Gettysburg 14 years ago.
Just some food for thought or a comment for the spam file.
Corey
Corey,
Thank you for your comment and compliments.
As for the images, no, they do not need reversing as they are from glass negatives, just like if they were made from film, they are presented as they would have been printed. The mirror image issue comes with daguerreotypes and tintypes as they are images made directly to non transparent surface, like a mirror would catch a reflection. Good question though.
John Cummings
John,
Thanks for the fascinating articles. I personally think Scott or you are correct, and that we are, indeed, looking at the first day's field and, specifically towards Shead's Woods. Regarding your concerns about the wood line, have you viewed Bachelder's 1864 Isometrical Map? It shows a finger of the wood line extending closer to the R.R. Cut and a more irregular "gap" than the 1868 map does. If you send me your email address I can send you a scan of the detail of the 1864 map.
No one has mentioned that Erik Dorr posted on the Gettysburg Museum Facbbook page some time ago that he thinks the dead are from the 147th New York.Also from the first days fight.
Charles,
Thank you for the comment and offer on the Bachelder map. I have seen it but do not have access to a detailed enough copy to see the area you are offering to scan. I would greatly appreciate your sending it. My email address is on the front of the blog in the right hand margin, below the search box.
John Cummings
Anonymous,
I can't speak for others, but I have not read Erik Dorr's study. I saw an announcement some months back that he had found a location he thought fit the bill, but having not seen the report, I am not able to make comment one way or the other.
John Cummings
John,
In 2008 Dr. Anne Knowles and her team digitized the Warren map. She was kind enough to share the data with me. With that data I have compared the 1868 topology with the 2001 topology. As you mentioned in your post the topology has changed in the area of your suggested site location. The land just behind the Thompson house may have been as much as 8 to 10 feet higher. The land has also changed in the foreground between your suggested site and the Thompson house. If you're interested in seeing a color representation of the changes I can send you one if provided an email address.
Tom Danninger
Tom,
Thank you for writing. I would be very appreciative of the topology information you have. My email address is located in the right hand column of the blog page, underneath the search box.
John Cummings
Post a Comment