|
Post by PhillyBlair on May 22, 2006 18:26:30 GMT -6
I think your proposal about them being killed earlier in the fight -- before the circle became tighter -- is a good one. How about some other ones:
1. Previous skirmish line (two men killed) -- hey, it's just as logical as the SSL used to be :>) 2. One wounded -- both killed during rescue attempt 3. Killed on return from cemetery ridge 4. Was best means of escape during a later portion of the battle
Obviously one could speculate forever, which is why I'm shocked that no one ever has. If someone knows of any previously written theories, I'd love to read them.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 23, 2006 1:42:54 GMT -6
Just a thought, springing from the previous "orderly" mention ...
Sharrow would obviously have been with HQ. If the other man was Stungewitz -- is it possible he was an orderly? (Maybe TWC's, being from C Company?) In which case this would favour the idea of the HQ party under pressure coming back from Ford D. It's easier to imagine than a Co. C man somehow getting there as a stray from the Finley/Calhoun/Keogh area ...
Only a theory, though!
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 23, 2006 7:11:43 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
Put your theory to rest, my dear. There were a couple of C Company men found on LSH, young Willis Wright being another. "Too many orderlies doth a weak fighting force make." Shakespeare, Coriolanis, Act II, scene 3.
Best wishes, [hic!] Fred.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on May 23, 2006 9:25:48 GMT -6
Hey Elisabeth, I've got it figured out. They were the two men with Pigford who were killed while they watched the Last Stand. This fits perfectly with Pigford's 1932 account ~:>) (just kidding)......Elisabeth, I'll drop you a message regarding my Edgerly/Bloom Cooperstown ordeal.
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on May 23, 2006 9:27:33 GMT -6
I don't know, but maybe it is one of those spurious 'pairs' of markers that really only mark one man. The photo shown above--if that's the pair we're talking about--looks to me to be one of those 'pairs'. Incidently, speaking of those pairs--now that archaeological investigation has shown for sure that in no case is there more than one individual's remains found at any of the pairs, is there a chance that they will be reset with one marker in the middle like it should be, and thus help correct the known overabundance of markers?
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 23, 2006 9:48:50 GMT -6
Jas. Watson--
That is an extremely good point which I hadn't really thought of; nicely done.
I wish they would re-set those stones; for heaven's sake! Make it real-- at least as best they can. Nice job.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on May 23, 2006 10:10:20 GMT -6
Jas Watson... great point, thanks. Don't know why that didn't occur to me before. Fred, thanks as well for your input.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 12, 2006 12:46:58 GMT -6
One other thing to consider is that most, if not all, paired stones have been shown to represent only one fallen soldier, with perhaps some horse bones thrown in. The Sharrow identification is the most-commonly-accepted. Why he was there, if indeed it was him, is another story [or guess] altogether.
Maybe whoever it was was killed during a withdrawal from near the North Ford, or maybe during a mad dash for the river, or maybe......................
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2006 17:33:05 GMT -6
Archaeology hasn't shown squat. That today they cannot find any human remains by a headstone may just mean 1.)that the complete body was removed at one of the several reburials like the Army relentlessly had promised they were, or 2.) archaeologists missed some bones still there not dragged off subsequently. Or, 3.) that the theory of two markers for one body is correct.
Lack of bone doesn't mean it was never there, though, especially for those loving internments involving a few shovels of dirt - their words - and a tumbleweed to hide the face. In fact, it would be rather amazing to think many were still where the first shovels left them. Apparently Custer's was not, unless someone dug him up, removed the vestments in which he and Tom were wrapped for clear identification, and buried them again.
Those bodies could have been dragged that night to the Wolf Mountians, for all anyone knows. Further, it's a little New Agey to assume that effort equals result, especially considering the source. Our Army lied through its teeth about this field for years.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 12, 2006 19:08:33 GMT -6
Lied? The Army lied? The Government Lied? The only mistake you made in your post, darkcloud, was to limit the lies to 'this field.' In another thread, I make it clear that I have no high regard for archaeologists, especially in regard to cartidge case evidence. I wouldn't limit it to that, and I will say that I have no regard for Fox's conclusions or his methods in arriving at them.
But that's just me - I don't got no PHD in nuthin.
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Aug 14, 2006 14:52:49 GMT -6
There have been bones found in many of the 'pairs of markers' but in no case have there been duplicates of anything. That makes a strong recommendation that they do not represent more than one soldier--it doesn't absolutely rule out two soldiers, but in none of the cases can it be shown that there were in fact two. That plus the known surplus of markers, and the awfully coincidental multiples of like spaced pairs...plus a logical explanation, pretty much convinces me, anyway, that they only represent a single burial.
Jas~
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 14, 2006 16:48:27 GMT -6
I may have to apologize here, which comes of not checking my notes before shooting off my mouth.
In a section devoted to reconstructing death sites at/near LSH, I find: "About 200 yards to the northwest of the monument, two markers were placed in 1890. Charles Woodruff, who was there in 1876, told Camp that that one of the 'two men farthest north' was William Sharrow, sergeant major of the regiment. These two locations are therefore most likely genuine; and it is unlikely that Godfrey included them in his count of 42 on the hill, since they were so far away. Indeed, Godfrey may have been totally unaware of their presence, since he had been called upon to identify Tom Custer, not to make a survey for bodies. There are no markers there today; but the 84/85 survey did disclose wooden stake fragments in that area."
"So, utilizing the information from all these reports, it is possible to assume, with a high degree of certainty, that there were 2 bodies remote to the northwest of Custer Hill, 8 or 10 bodies on the knob and 32 to 34 bodies on the slope, together with numerous dead horses, perhaps 3 dozen or so. Since the knob is now levelled and occupied by the monument, and since the bodies on the hillside were within a small space, moving 10 markers to the knob [Roe's figure] and reducing the number on the hill to 32 [Godfrey's 42 minus 10] and putting 2 to the northwest [as per 1891 map and Woodruff] will give an accurate picture of what was reality in 1876."
It's hard to tell from the photo in this thread, but I think that the pictured markers may be #s 55 and 56. As noted above, there are no markers where Woodruff said the two bodies were. It's anyone's guess as to why they were moved [not removed, just moved somewhere].
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 14, 2006 19:07:00 GMT -6
The Fouche photos suggest more error than that. There are grave sites heading south along what is now the road where there are no markers today, and the shot downslope reveals significantly fewer markers than 32. And there's a notion that Reed was never found at all. It's not just the number, it's the suggestion they were in the shape of an arrow with C at the point, not bunched in a pro-active last stand.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 14, 2006 23:00:02 GMT -6
There is no doubt that the original stakings, and restakings over the years, plus Sweet and the additional burials and removals, plus the major construction projects over the years, have tended to distort what wa found on 27/28 June.
I doubt that my reconstructions and maps will be totally accurate or will locate gravesites to plus or minus 3 feet. Even if they were and did, so what? The location of a particular body at a particular spot is significant only in and of itself. It doesn't tell us how that body came to be there.
Take Sharrow, for example. I believe that his body was found where Woodruff says it was; but that only leads to speculation as to what he was doing there, where he came from and where he was going.
I am not one of those who believe that the markers or gravesites reveal some great truths about the fight on Custer Field, except to indicate where groups of men were buried and maybe killed. I believe from all the evidence I have seen that Armstrong Custer's body was buried almost exactly where his marker sits. But so what? It is well-established that his body was found on the knob of the hill, and was moved downhill for easier burial. But so what? The location of his body does not tell us how it came to be there - even if that was his death site. It certainly doesn't prove that there was a last stand there, and it doesn't tell us where Custer had been, where he was going, what he was thinking, what orders he was giving or had given.
Everything else is speculation, even if that speculation is based on the best, or preponderance of, evidence. As a wise man once said: "Every time you start a sentence with 'In my opinion' it means you don't know.
The best evidence is that Reed and Boston Custer were found a considerable distance down the hill from the "Last Stand Group" - not where their markers are currently located [if they haven't been moved]. They may in fact be represented by markers 55 and 56 mentioned above. Or maybe not.
I might think that I know as much as anybody else about what happened at the Little Horn; but I know that I don't know everything, and that I never will. There will always be some sentences that I start with "In my opinion."
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Aug 15, 2006 9:03:19 GMT -6
Well, of course! Everything about this whole battle is speculation--so what else is new? That's the fun of the whole thing--sure, none of it makes a bit of difference really--it's all history, dead and done. But it is so much fun and interesting speculating and trying to figure it all out--which we never will of course--but it doesn't keep us from trying.
Jas~
|
|