Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Apr 6, 2012 10:37:26 GMT -6
Kinda resurrecting old demons here, aren't we? I mean... 2010? All the archaeology proves is that Boyer was buried there. It doesn't even mean he died there, though I would draw the conclusion he probably did. I would tend to doubt his body was brought there from somewhere else. The problem is, there are too many markers there, some of which are clearly spurious. Accounts place no more than 12-- and probably fewer-- along that line, between LSH and Deep Ravine.
A. He probably did not die somewhere else and then transported to his final resting place by a sentimental Indian or a harried soldier vomiting from the stink of decomposition. So it is safe to say this did not occur.
B. In 1877, the final places of rest had been, naturally, disturbed by the elements and the science of a specific burial containing only the bones of the decease could be clinically specific. For example, the burial party would sometimes assume that two separate "spots" of substantial foliage were assumed to be separate kill areas. As such, two pillars were place where only one should have. this, of course, accounts for the excessive amount of pairing of pillars on the field.
C. Only one positive identification has been made from the limited bones recovered and that was the body of Mitch Boyer.
D. "even with all the twists and nuances, we have achieved a certain amount of success. The excavations have clearly demonstrated that some markers are improperly located, do not identify the site of a fallen soldier, and potentially bias the interpretation of battle events. the excavations have shown, however, that most markers do represent the location where a soldier was laid to rest, albeit temporarily. The results of the archaeological testing program demonstrates that the distribution of markers on the field conveys a relatively accurate impression of where a soldier [scout] fell on June 25 or 26, 1876. Best wishes,Fred.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Apr 6, 2012 10:43:23 GMT -6
I goofed my response and blocked Fred's response out. Sorry! :oThis is in response to Fred's comments regarding the burial spot of Mitch.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Apr 6, 2012 11:09:00 GMT -6
There's a delete button and one for preview. Who knew?
Anyway, Fred, et al. On my marker/burial/where-they-fell map from several years ago, I have the spot where Boyer's grave was excavated marked, but I also have a possible location for his body having been found closer to the river, nearer Ford D. I can't remember why. Anyone have any input on this?
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 6, 2012 15:21:55 GMT -6
There's a delete button and one for preview. Who knew? Yeah and there is even a spell check button and tittering makes it through spell check. Still don't know what it means but I'm well acquainted with the abbreviated version. bc
|
|
|
Post by clw on Apr 6, 2012 17:16:51 GMT -6
Smart ass. ;D
Titter: to giggle or snigger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 6, 2012 20:33:52 GMT -6
A. He probably did not die somewhere else and then transported to his final resting place by a sentimental Indian or a harried soldier vomiting from the stink of decomposition. So it is safe to say this did not occur. Trying to make heads and tails of all this... Let's not forget the fact that some bodies were taken out of Deep Ravine and, in all likelihood, buried on the SSL-- where else? Were you educated in this country? Are you a product of the American school system? Or is it me? The "pillars"-- I call them "markers," as does everyone else I know-- were placed some 14 years after the fact. It is understandable many of them were placed erroneously... and the fact Sweet had too many for the Custer field did not help. When the archaeological work was done in the summers of 1984 and 1985, a number of the vicinities around markers were found to have absolutely no artifacts, and at least one area-- I believe with two markers-- on the SSL was proven to be unusable as a burying spot. Whether or not someone died there and then the body moved to a place where it could be interred, we will never know. You got this one right. No soldiers fell on the Custer field on the 26th. Also, no excavations were necessary to determine there were spurious markers. Counting past 210 would prove that point. Your definition of "relative" is very, very loose. Best wishes, Fred. PS-- Diane, if you read this, here is a new, interesting glitch in Proboards... look at the word, "very" just above. It will not print it in italics, whether I type the etc. or hit the italics button. Just above that, you will see "that" in bold. Same thing happened, that's why I put it in bold. Weird! FCW
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 6, 2012 21:01:01 GMT -6
On my marker/burial/where-they-fell map from several years ago, I have the spot where Boyer's grave was excavated marked, but I also have a possible location for his body having been found closer to the river, nearer Ford D.... Anyone have any input on this? Roe, C. F., LT--F/2C-- Boyer’s body was found west or northwest of where the monument now stands. Roe claimed it was near the river and the timberline. He did not actually see Boyer’s body. Camp interview, 8Dec1910; Custer in '76, 250. [ Hard to reconcile where he believes Boyer was found and the results of the archeology. Of course, the remains could very well have been dragged up the slope by some predator.] Walter Camp-- Camp wrote that Mitch Boyer’s body had been found “near the river north of the Cheyenne village—that is, on the opposite side of the river from the Cheyenne village.” Letter to Godfrey, 6Nov1920; On The LBH With Walter Camp, 156. Logan, William R.-- In May 1909, a W. R. Logan wrote a letter to Walter Camp. There is no indication if Logan was speaking for himself or for Curley, but in the letter he claims to have been warm friends with Mitch Boyer and he saw Boyer’s body: “I found the body... on the ridge something over half way between where Custer fell and where Reno made his stand on the high butte.” May, 1909; Custer in '76, 167, FN 3. [ Logan was the son of CPT William A. Logan and was with the Gibbon column, probably in the capacity of messenger or scout, bringing mail and dispatches-- certainly on April 21st. In all likelihood, he was a scout, though there is no mention of him in Bradley's book.] Interesting stuff, don't you think? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Apr 7, 2012 12:19:35 GMT -6
Yes. Very interesting indeed. And thank you.
It's just hard for me to justify Boyer on the SSL. I would think Custer would want to keep him nearby and besides which, why would he go with E Co anyway? I just seems more logical that Boyer fell near the northern ford as he would have been the one to take Custer to it.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 7, 2012 14:25:17 GMT -6
Smart ass. ;D Titter: to giggle or snigger Thanks. Sounds like another new goal in my life; spend more time tittering and making other people titter. Could start a tittering movement. bc
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Apr 7, 2012 15:01:35 GMT -6
clw, a big what if; What if Bouyer fell early on and the SSL came along after he was already dead?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 7, 2012 18:40:14 GMT -6
It's just hard for me to justify Boyer on the SSL. I would think Custer would want to keep him nearby and besides which, why would he go with E Co anyway? I just seems more logical that Boyer fell near the northern ford as he would have been the one to take Custer to it. CLW and Zekesgirl, Here is the issue: based on my post, we have two first-hand-- or close to first-hand-- sightings of the "body," and one account, probably taken from interviews with men who were there. The three accounts could not be farther apart... and when you add the archaeological findings, we have a fourth. The archaeology speaks for itself, and I may interject I do not find it odd Boyer's body could have been found with those of E Company, for it is my opinion E Company was sent, as a unit, off LSH in some attempt-- feeble or otherwise-- to break out toward the river. Desperate men, desperate measures. And it smacks to me of a move a sensible military man would want to make, all sorts of ideas, i. e., leapfrogging, etc., to follow. The Roe comment also makes sense, though, like Camp's it is hearsay. It is, however, in context with Camp's findings, meaning they arrived at their opinions from the same source (one much later than the other), or, if different sources lending credibility to the claim. Also, it is not unreasonable to believe that source was correct, but Boyer's body was brought up the SSL and buried there, to be amongst the men he fought with and not so isolated. I do not find anything unreasonable about that theory. The Logan story-- if I read it correctly-- is completely off the wall. Am I wrong, or does his description seem to indicate the Luce Ridge area or even closer to Weir Point? Can we attach any credibility to that? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Apr 7, 2012 19:39:10 GMT -6
Logan would put Bouyer at least in Medicine Tail. I can't buy that at all.
Yes, his body could have been moved, but why just move him? Wasn't Kellogg found down toward Ford D also?
|
|
|
Post by clw on Apr 7, 2012 20:03:32 GMT -6
The three accounts could not be farther apart... and when you add the archaeological findings, we have a fourth. Yes they're all over the map. Literally. Logical, but I have a different theory -- not being secretive just not able to defend it -- and it would be supported if Mitch died closer to the river. Just offering that in full disclosure of prejudice. Titter. I like it. Yes that has to be Weir or Luce which makes no sense. And it doesn't fit with your theory or mine either, so I don't like it. Now Terri's theory is interesting -- that Mitch fell at the SSL before E Co ever got there. I don't mean to be flippant, it's just the way my mind works. And this is one of pieces of the battle that's always nagged at me. Just trying to think it through.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Apr 7, 2012 20:06:38 GMT -6
Excellent point about Kellogg. Forgot about him. This is all coming back to me now, God I've been away from this stuff forever!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 8, 2012 9:34:52 GMT -6
CLW and Zekesgirl,
Kellogg was found very late in the "finding" ceremonies and was probably the last man "buried." This was because he was found between the Ford D crossing and Cemetery Ridge.
To my way of thinking, Custer reached that crossing and there is archaeological evidence pointing to that fact. It is inconclusive because the "evidence" was located only part of the way between the Battle Ridge extension and the ford, but logic points to a movement in that direction.
If Boyer's body was actually brought back up to the SSL, in all likelihood he would have been killed after Kellogg, but in the same general movement, a rather scythe-like move from the ford to the ridge. I would assume Kellogg was killed while trailing the command (he rode a mule, making him a bit slower; and very mad Indians had crossed the ford and were trailing the column; it was these same Indians that closed any escape to the north); and Boyer-- if this were the case-- while leading the command. He would, therefore, have been killed by Indians crossing at the Deep Ravine ford, and who had spotted Custer's column returning from Ford D.
The issue I have with Boyer being killed on the SSL, sans E Company, is that I do not believe there were any troops there until "E" made its move. F Company probably crossed the ridge on its way to the basin area (another pet theory of mine), and I doubt seriously Boyer would have been with Yates.
I, personally, would have no issue with Boyer being killed on the return from Ford D, and his body being later brought up to be buried.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|