Effects of a shell...: An examination of a controversial Gettysburg photograph

One of the most visually disturbing and morbid views recorded by Alexander Gardner's photographic team at Gettysburg is that of the disemboweled Confederate soldier at the Rose farm. Entitled "Effects of a shell at the Battle of Gettysburg," the image is riveting in its demonstration of the horrors of war. William A. Frassanito, in his recent book Early Photography at Gettysburg, has raised some questions as to whether the gaping wound depicted could have been caused by the carnivorous feeding of wild hogs. This theory is based in part upon contemporary accounts of hog predation, the nature of the wound being seemingly inconsistent with the effect of an artillery round striking a body, and the similarity of this soldier's wound to that of another soldier photographed in the near vicinity (similarly titled "Confederate soldiers who had evidently been shelled by our batteries").

While this explanation is very plausible, and I have only the utmost regard for Mr. Frassanito's pioneering work in Civil War photography, I would like to revisit the original theory that these wounds were caused by a solid shot or unexploded shell. This reappraisal is based on a discussion of the surgical-pathological nature of penetrating wounds and examination of the stereo photographs for evidence of such.

Viewing the stereo photo in three dimensions, one sees that the volume of tissue loss is enormous. Of significance, the wound encompasses both the lower chest as well as the majority of the abdomen. In fact, the lower portions of both the left and right rib cage as well as the lower sternum (breast bone) have been torn away in a ragged fashion. Both small and large intestines are exposed, but, remarkably, the majority of the liver is missing, as is the right diaphragm, exposing the inside of the right rib cage, the right lung, and the heart's ventricular apex.

At least six inches of the left arm remain on the soldier's body. However, the humerus (upper arm bone) is not exposed, having been transected within the upper arm's musculature. The remains of the detached left lower arm and hand seen in the foreground are missing the elbow joint.

The nature of these wounds is entirely consistent with the trauma induced by the energy of a solid artillery projectile moving with low velocity, high mass, and high momentum. If the round was fired from the Peach Orchard salient, and struck this soldier in the left flank, then it is of reasonable trajectory to have struck his left arm in the elbow region, traumatically amputating and destroying the arm up to the mid humerous and similarly amputating and destroying the elbow joint and up to six inches of the radius and ulna -- the lower arm bones. The round then could have conceivably entered the lower left chest/upper abdomen and inflicted the gaping, massive tissue loss wound of the solid chest wall as seen in the photograph. It is also within the limits of physics for the energy transfer imparted by the solid arm/chest to have reduced the velocity of the projectile substantially to be found on the ground nearby -- such as the shell seen just above the knee of the soldier.

It is difficult to visualize an animal chewing completely through the fairly large bones of the humerous and both the radius and ulna, discarding the elbow joint, while not gnawing away on the softer arm musculature. And although the soft underbelly of this soldier is indeed exposed, it is similarly difficult to consider an animal preferentially gnawing on the hard ribs and sternum. Furthermore, it is anatomically very difficult to consider any mechanism of injury other than military trauma which could result in the exposure of the inside of the right chest through the diaphragm.

The apparent darkening of the presumed traumatically amputated left hand may be tissue masceration and/or staining by mud and/or blood. But the potential difference in appearance between each hand is still consistent with a military wounding. The left hand is in a neutral position and does appear edematous and bloated. Decomposition and bloating is indeed influenced by the function of bacteria. Like the soldier's face, which is severely bloated due to oral bacteria, an amputated hand is exposed (particularly in the heat and rain) directly to bacteria entering the severed wound and extending downwards via anatomic fascial planes. In fact, it would take longer for bacteria to traverse the blood vessels to the right hand with blood flow stopped due to instantaneous death.

Whether the carefully positioned 10-pounder Parrott shell (or 3 inch ordnance shell) is the offending round or just a photographer's prop is impossible to determine. The photographic clarity is insufficient to determine the presence of rifling indicative of actual firing, but the rear of the shell does appear to present some sort of deformity. Significantly, this shell appears in at least one other Gardner photograph made in the vicinity.

Gardner artistically employed both the holed canteen and the 1861 rifle musket in several surrounding photographs. The musket in this specific photograph is missing the ramrod and has the bayonet affixed only partially on to the muzzle, and not in the position of use. Somewhat troubling is the absence of both the musket's sling and the sling for the canteen, both of which one would expect to see in use on a campaign.

Finally, the nature of the wounds of the soldier seen below are more difficult to examine in three dimensions due to poor clarity of the photograph. However, this wound appears to be limited to the abdomen only. It is consistent with either military trauma or an animal rooting in the corpse's abdomen. Of interest, the presence of several leafed tree limbs on and surrounding these bodies also is consistent with the effects of artillery.

Although the anatomic and pathologic observations presented here are consistent with artillery wounding of these soldiers as described by Gardner, it is quite possible that some animal feeding and corpse mutilation did occur. Whether one mechanism exclusively occurred is conjectural and may never be determined with precision But the possibility that these photographs do indeed depict "the effect of a shell at the Battle of Gettysburg" should be considered a viable possibility.

Paul R. Johnson practices surgery in Chestertown, Maryland and is very interested in Civil War medicine. Doctor Johnson is seeking an image of Surgeon Thomas Sims, Medical Director of the 3rd Corps, Army of the Potomac, 1863.

Copyright Military Images Nov/Dec 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved