|
Post by elisabeth on May 18, 2006 11:02:59 GMT -6
Gary,
A speculative thought, rather than any knowledge: do you think it's possible that Pawnee Killer was instead involved on the attack on Custer's wagon train?
Also, if I've got the dates sraight in my head ... aren't the two attacks rather suspiciously simultaneous? Can't help wondering if there mightn't have been some co-ordination going on.
Fred's tattoo: do you know anything about the circumstances? Bell doesn't mention a chest scalping (though if his chest was cut open, it mightn't have been detectable). If the Indians took it, how and when was it recovered, and how recognised? I'd be glad to know of any definitive information on this, as I'd been toying with the (slightly ghoulish) thought that it might instead have been taken by either Bell himself or Dr. Turner, post surgeon at Wallace -- perhaps with a view to identification later on? You've identified several of the suspicious holes in Wyllyams' account of himself. Bell seems to buy the "Etonian" story; but possibly others may have suspected an alias, and seized on the tattoo as a means of settling the matter if any relatives came enquiring ... What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by wyllyams on May 18, 2006 14:58:50 GMT -6
Hello Again,
Since my first questions a few weeks ago I have bought and read both Son of a Morning Star and Life in Custer's Cavalry. The variation in the recollections are interesting. My view is similar to Elizabeth's, Gary's (hello) and Markland. I feel that the body was photographed back at Fort Wallace as per Capt Barnitz's diaries and letters. I have another book with a really good print of the photo. The Plains Wars 1757-1900 by Charles M Robinson III. The only text says the mutilated body of Sgt Wyllyams on the Kansas Plains in 1867. The photo is a really good reproduction and clearly shows the clump of scalp next to his left elbow. The gash in his neck and slashes to his chest, and thighs are also very clear. The dark area on Fred's neck (left side) looks like washed blood stains from the neck slash. There are also stains from the large chest slash and from below his right hand. Capt Barnitz clearly defends Bell's decision to take this photo to enable the people in the East to understand what was happening. I would think that the ball through the head as well as a hatchet wound to the head killed poor Fred and all the other damage was post mortem.
Finally the Tattoo. I have been mailing Jayne and Cecil Pearce at Fort Wallace Museum. Jayne tells me that there is a college that has what they claim to be Sgt Wyllyams tattoo that was cut from his arm by Indians who thought it Big Medicine. It is on display. I believe there was some discussion about giving it to the Museum but they are not all that keen??
I understand the tattoo is an anchor which would tie in with his mariner occupation claimed on his wedding certificate. Elizabeth will have to remind me but another source spoke of a Unicorn and two Union Flags. Is there two tattoos both claiming to be from Wyllyams???. The college claims that the Anchor was taken from his forearm. If this is the case it explains why Fred's right arm was cut to the bone. This would also question Dr Bells thoughts that this was another sign left by the Indians. I understand that Tattoos were often removed by Indians?? How tattoos found by researchers years later can be identified to the original victim I struggle to understand.
The picture I feel shows five arrows clearly. I cannot see any other arrow holes .
Finally I am still searching for any sign of Frederick Charles henry Augustus Wyllyams prior to his Marriage Cert in 1865. or his father William Henry Wyllyams (Army Surgeon.) One more query, on enlistment he only uses Frederick Wyllyams on all paperwork I have seen. The full name from the marriage cert (as above) is only seen in the pension details once his wife (Eliza) has made a claim. I am still trying to find out how she managed to contact the 7th C when she did not know he had joined the army.
I have found a William Henry Williams a physician who invented a field tourniquet. I do not think he is the correct Surgeon. I do however have an interesting lead for Frederick Williams in the 1841 and 1851 census but need to do some more digging
Steve
|
|
|
Post by wyllyams on May 18, 2006 15:07:28 GMT -6
UPDATE.
Just found the reference to the chest Tattoo. It is on pg 162 S.O.A.M.S. 'Wyllyams had a distinctive tattoo on his chest: a Unicorn, a lion,and a coat of arms flanked by British Flags' This tattoo- which is to say an oval patch of skin bearing this design- later turned up in a Cheyenne village.
So we have two tattoo's both claiming to be from Wyllyams. Anyone have any further information?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 18, 2006 15:21:44 GMT -6
Hi Elisabeth and Steve,
I prepared a fairly long reply to the last two posts, but it disappeared when I tried to post it! Here goes again with a slightly truncated version.
I ought to say that appart from my own enquiries, I've received a lot of help with from Ron McCoy of Emporia State University who has provided a lot of valuable information.
Starting with the tattoo, Ron tells me that he has seen it on a number of occasions. As mentioned in my last post, there is a photograph of it in Colin taylor's book. I don't know how to put a photo on the internet, so I will try to describe it.
The tattoo looks to me like the kind of tattoo that a member of the British armed forces would sport. It shows six flags in three rows; two per row. The two flags in front appear to be white ensigns. Behind them are what appear to be two union flags. The rear flags are not identifiable.
The Royal coat of arms appears in the middle (at least it looks like the Royal coat of arms. It is an oval, quartered with a lion in the top right hand quarter and a harp in the bottom left hand quarter. There are squiggles which I take to be three lions in the other two quarters). The coat of arms has a crown on top and a motto around it, although this is illegible.
In front of the flags and on either side of the coat of arms are a lion and a unicorn. There is a pile of cannon balls between the lion and the unicorn and cannons poking out from behind the flags on either side. There is a further illegible motto below the lion and the unicorn.
Colin Taylor's caption reads:
"Chest skin scalp showing tattoo, 1867. This was taken from the chest of Sergeant Frederick Wyllyams by the Cheyennes and recaptured from them some time later. It was given to Captain Isaac P Baker, M D, by one of the cavalry officers. It measures 5 3/4 inches by 5 1/2. Paul Dyck Collection, Paul Dyck Foundation".
I have not been abe to find out anything else about the tattoo and have not seen it reproduced elsewhere.
I think that the idea of co-ordinated attacks upon Fort Wallace and Custer's wagon train on 26th June 1867 seems likely. I had originally ruled Pawnee Killer out as he was attacking Custer's camp on the Republican two days before. On reflection, I do not think that the distance is so great as to preclude his involvement in the Fort Wallace attack.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by wyllyams on May 18, 2006 16:17:18 GMT -6
Gary,
Quite detailed! What is Colin Taylor's book called? Is it current?
I have E Mailed the guys at Fort Wallace re their tattoo to try and get more details. My concern is that there is no sign of a 5" x 5" tattoo having been removed from Fred's chest in the photo.
Re Info for Fred in the UK I will E mail directly so we can compare notes.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 18, 2006 21:49:19 GMT -6
There is a law against displaying human remains in museums in this country, so I would be surprised to hear that a college has that tatoo on display. That law is the reason the Buffalo Bill Historical Center does not display the scalp that Buffalo Bill took to avenge Custer's death.
Scout's comment about the arrows being enhanced makes sense, but the shaft of the arrow going into the groin disappears before penetrating the skin. A couple of the entry holes appear to be inked in as well, IMHO. I guess I'm just having trouble believing my eyes!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 18, 2006 22:53:16 GMT -6
I prepared a fairly long reply to the last two posts, but it disappeared when I tried to post it! Gary, If that happens again, you should be able to click the back button on your browser to return to the white message box. There have been many times I've written a reply, previewed it, and gone on to another board, only to remember that I didn't click the "Post Reply" button. It should still be there unless you've left the boards. Diane
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 19, 2006 9:03:49 GMT -6
Thanks Steve and Diane.
The book is unfortunately long out of print. It is called 'The Warriors of the Plains' and was published by Hamlyn in 1975. You may be able to get a copy from Abebooks.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 19, 2006 13:31:04 GMT -6
Re: Keogh--I believe he said in his letter that he had the photograph "made," which could simply mean a copy from the negative.
Re: Wyllyams as mariner--He could easily have signed on any old ship available just to get across the Atlantic, and it's quite likely that there wouldn't be any surviving record of it. We have very few records here at SF Maritime of the sailors who were on our own ships. Then when enlisting, he would have given that as his previous occupation.
This is off the top of my head on my lunch break; I have never really looked into this guy. But I noticed a mention of a good photograph in the very first post--is there by any chance a picture of him while he was still alive, or only the famous shocker?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 20, 2006 0:02:49 GMT -6
Melani, in Convis he says "taken" rather than "made" -- "they had a photographist along so I had it taken". Which does sound as if Keogh ordered it done; but you could well be right, he might simply mean he had a copy taken ...
For the benefit of those not as immersed in Keogh as we two are, here's the full quote! It's from Charles L. Convis, The Honor of Arms, p. 64; a letter written by Keogh to his brother from Fort Harker on August 15th 1868. (I've corrected a couple of Convis typos.)
"I send you a copy of a photograph I had taken of one of my sergeants that the Indians killed last year. The top of his head was cut off. There was a party of engineers surveying the Pacific R. R. and they had a photographist along so I had it taken. This man was less brutally used than others owing to our charging up to re-capture some prisoners the Indians were trying to get off."
There are discrepancies here, obviously. Wyllyams isn't strictly speaking one of Keogh's own sergeants, except in the sense that he was temporarily attached to Keogh's post; "our charging up" makes it sounds as if Keogh was there in person for the Barnitz fight, which he wasn't; and the "prisoners" reference doesn't fit with any account that I can recall. But the wounds and the rank, coinciding with the survey party's presence, pretty much mean that this has to be the Wyllyams photo, I think ...
Re mariner: that was my first thought, too. But Steve has the marriage certificate on which he gives that (or is it "merchant seaman"? -- can't remember off-hand) as his occupation quite some time before he leaves for America, so it looks as if he didn't just sign up to work his passage, but had worked as a sailor before. A lot more to Wyllyams than meets the eye, from what Steve and Gary have found out so far!
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 20, 2006 1:34:35 GMT -6
Well, that's what I get for posting from work on my lunch break, without my references handy to check! I still can't figure out why Keogh wrote it that way when he wasn't even there, and I guess I'm trying to find some rationale other than B.S.ing to impress his family.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 20, 2006 3:40:57 GMT -6
Yes, it's odd, isn't it; he's not normally an untruthful sort. Nor given to boasting about his exploits, unlike some. I suppose "our charging up" could be in the sense of "our side", "our guys" ... Or he might be conflating it with another incident; he's writing more than a year after the event, and it's easy for memories to get muddled. Unless there's another sergeant, and another photo!
|
|
|
Post by Lawtonka on May 20, 2006 8:22:51 GMT -6
Hello to everyone, hope you don't mind if I join you in this fascinating discussion. Wow! I have gone back to the first post and read them all. You guys are great! This is a fascinating subject. I would like to offer a few of my thoughts. I do not in any way claim to be an expert, just another enthusiast. Any comments or corrections are welcome.
Photography was still in the early stages in 1867.
It was in September 1839 when newspapers from England arrived in New York City on the steamer Great Western which contained a description of Jacques Mande Daguerre's process for producing what became known as the daguerreotype. This was a photographic image on a thin sheet of copper which took up to 20 minutes of exposure time. When processed and fixed it was placed in a case covered with glass.
William Henry Fox Talbot of England had developed a process for recording images on paper in the 1830s and shared it through a publication on February 17, 1839.
By the 1850s improvements were made in the paper process developed by others and eventually replace Daguerre's process. From the Daguerreotype, the ambrotype. By the 1860s photos were captured on silver, glass, iron, and paper. The Civil War was a boom time for photography in the U.S.
Many of the early photographers were actually artist. Some even advertised as artist rather than photographers. Many of these talented artist/photographers touched up there photographs with color and highlighting details. Thus, the point here being, it would not have been a very big deal for arrows to have been drawn in to a photograph.
My though on sketches. Although photographs were very common by the mid 1860s and the ability to print on paper was well established, I think at that time reproducing photographs in newspapers, and publications such as Harper's Weekly, had not yet become possible. The pictures were reproduced for the presses in woodblock carvings. I feel sure that given the time period, the sketch eliminating the groin area was done for that reason.
As Scout mentioned, many of the Civil War Battlefield photographs had been staged, although the bodies were real. For instance the photograph of the soldier lying in the rock fortification at the Devil's Den in Gettysburg was set up. The soldier was propped up against the rocks and a musket was placed in the photograph.
During the mid to late 1800's postmortem photography was somewhat popular. Remember the photographs of Billy Clanton and the McLowery brothers who were killed by the Earps in Tombstone? They were photographed prior to burial.
There are many famous outlaws who were photographed with clothing removed to show the bullet holes, etc. and in some cases put on public display. These photographs look very similar to the one in this subject. Some of these guys have multiple gunshot wounds and in the photographs they appear mostly as dark spots on light skin.
Lastly, taking photographs in 1867 was much different. The cameras were bulky, heavy and were used with a tripod. It was not a matter of convenience. The photographer had to carry his processing equipment with him. The wet plate process required immediate processing.
I feel pretty certain that the mutilation of the body and the arrows were fired into the body following the initial fatal wound. Once his heart stopped pumping, there would be very little or possibly no blood.
I would say that the photograph was taken on the same day as the death but not more than a day later. Decomposition out in the open in the month of June would have progressed quite rapidly.
What time of the day was the fight? In the photograph it appears the sun must have been pretty much overhead as the only shadow I can see is directly under the body. Also there are no shadows resulting from the arrows.
Well, sorry for being so long, hope this may be of some help in us trying to understand what it took back then for taking a photograph.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 20, 2006 9:30:30 GMT -6
Great stuff, Lawtonka! And the difficulties of frontier photography in 1867 are underlined by a remark from Barnitz. He says, of Bell's photographs, that Bell "will print some copies for us when the days are less light". ( Life in Custer's Cavalry, p. 74.) So he's dependent on the weather for being able to make prints ... Actually, maybe we've got a clue as to the date of the photograph -- because Barnitz's letter saying Bell "photographed the body of Serg't Wyllyams after it was brought to the post" is dated June 29th. It's a very, very long letter, of course, so may have been written in instalments, like the Benteen ones; it could have taken several days ... But in his official report (p. 75) he says the fight began at about 6 a.m., and that an ambulance was sent "for the removal of the dead and wounded" while he still had possession of the field. So they'd have been taken back -- when? Middday? Early afternoon? Bell presumably came with the ambulance and saw the scene -- but I think we've satisfied ourselves that the camera was probably still back at the post! Re decomposition: I can't lay hands on the source just now, but I think it's Theodore Davis who says that the dry air of Kansas means bodies don't rot, just desiccate. If true, they could perhaps have hung on for a few days. But again going from Barnitz (I can't have read him with proper attention before!) it would seem that Bell was taking quite a few photographs on the day of the battle: "Dr. Bell (W. a.) of Phila. an amateur photographic artist with the engineering party, took a photograph of myself and the other officers of the post, sitting in front of the commandant's quarters, with cavalry horses, and the boundless prairie in the background, on the afternoon of the day of the battle." That photo is shown here: www.oceansofkansas.com/Tale-tail.htmlSo it's looking more and more as if it was on the afternoon of the 26th. (Which makes Keogh's statement even more puzzling ...!) One little sidelight on the photography thing that might be of interest: Bell initially tried to sign on with the survey party as a doctor, but the only vacancy they had was for a photographer. So he went off to the nearest photographic studio, learned the art in a matter of days (more or less), and got the job. Astounding, when it was such a complicated process back then!
|
|
|
Post by Lawtonka on May 20, 2006 11:34:57 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
I have not read on the battle. Sounds interesting. I did look at the photographs from the link you posted. The quality of the photographs have about the same consistency in contrast and detail.
I am thinking when he said "less light" he may have been relating to having trouble processing in his darkroom. It might also be refering to when the day light hours become shorter as in the late fall or early winter.
Most likely, his darkroom was makeshift. In a lot of cases, photographers of that period often used a wagon built suitable to carry their equipment and also to be used as a darkroom in the field. It may have been a difficult task to have it dark enough with bright sun to handle his plates and process. The glass plates were coated and had to be exposed while wet. Any light leakage can either expose the film or fog it.
Being a doctor, he was probably able to understand the chemical process fairly easy. Though the process of taking pictures at that time and processing was cumbersome, It could be learned in a reasonable amount of time.
As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the time frame of the hostile actions taking place (I sure need to read about this, sounds very interesting) you mentioned that Bell visited the battle area while it was in command or control of the 7th. If the area was still considered at "hostile" I can go along with the fact of his being a doctor would gain him access to the site, but a little doubtful if he would have been given the luxury to make photographs at that particular time. Of course that theory would be worthless today, i.e. CNN imbeded reporters !
During the Civil War here nearby in Charleston, SC, General Gillmore granted a photographer, George S. Cook, to take his camera out to Fort Sumter in September 1863. During this time, Charleston was under constant threat of bombardment from Union land and sea batteries. Sure enough, he set his camera up on the battle worn wall of Fort Sumter and while making an exposure of the interior of the fort, a shell from one on the Monitors exploded almost perfectly in the center of the parade ground. This is only one of two action shots that I know of taken during the war. The other was by Haas and Peale on Morris Island, they were photographing the beach looking north and in the background under enlargement, you can see the actual firing of a gun on the new USS Ironsides. There is a tremendous cloud of smoke about the port side of the ship. Enough of that, sorry, I get a little over excited about this subject.
I mentioned earlier about shadows on the subject and I would estimate the photo was taken around noon time. I would not think they would have delayed burial of the body much more than a day. IF the bodies were recovered on the day of the fight, I would think most likely he would have been buried by the next day at latest. The only reason I would think different would be in the case his body was going to be held for shipment or if family was going to recover it. Looks like in his case, since he is buried locally, my guess would be the day after he was killed.
|
|