Deep Ravine or Cemetery Ravine?

[PhillyBlair]

I don't always read my LBH books in order and just recently finished Michno's "The Mystery of E Troop" (1994). For those who have read the book, how valid is Michno's theory (12 years later) that the "missing bodies" were/are in Cemetery Ravine as opposed to Deep Ravine? Has Michno's work been officially refuted?

In the end, it's amazing to me that we've never resolved the issue of these missing bodies. Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Dark Cloud]

Given the descriptions of the original burials, any corpse in a water course covered by brush and some dirt probably didn't survive the first winter and spring drainage. Never mind wolves and else.

Reduced to essentials, because no bodies were found in Deep Ravine, Michno wants them in Cemetery because it moves the soldiers somewhat north and aids the Ever On the Offensive Custer theory. Sorta. Something. The lack of evidence proves his point, don't you see.

[PhillyBlair]

Yes, I must admit to being less than overwhelmed by the evidence. Not to knock Michno (Lakota Noon was excellent, in my opinion), but the point you raise about either ravine likely washing away bodies in the first year is well taken. Michno cites the 1980's archaeological finds as proof that relics still remained a mere 8" beneath the surface at the so-called South Skirmish Line, but that wasn't in a ravine, was it?

Anyone out there agree with Michno? Also, somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall one of the burial detail participants stating that bodies were pulled out of a ravine and buried. Does anyone know if that was claimed, and by whom?

[rch]

I don't think every fact makes it into the history books. If you have a lot of missing bodies and a lot of grave markers, the first place to look for the remains is under the grave markers. Before searching either ravine I'd look under the markers on the South Skirmish line.

rch

[George Mabry]

I've read Michno's book and was not convinced. There are too many witnesses who saw bodies in a deep ravine to discount the possiblility. At least one witness even went so far as to describe the slide marks on the side of the steep walled ravine where the soldiers had tried to climb out or hold a position at the lip but slide back down. Then we have other witness(s) who say that the upper edge of the lip was caved in as to fall on the bodies and cover them.

I've never walked down Cemetary ravine to the river's bank but from what I can tell by photos and film, there are no steep walls like described along the ravine's entire length.

I also don't have any trouble with accepting an archaelogist's word that at that particular place (LBH), bodies in a ravine would be more apt to be covered with sediment than to be washed away.

One of the accounts placed the bodies at about 2000 yards from the monument. Assuming that estimate of distance is right or even close to being correct, it rules out Cemetary ravine.

Granted it does seem strange that later burial parties did not see skeletal remains in Deep ravine. Surely they covered that ground in detail. But stranger things have happened.

Michno simply took the easiest theory to "prove". No remains were found in deep ravine therefore no bodies were there to begin with and then he proposes an alternate location.

George

[George Mabry]

rch said:

I don't think every fact makes it into the history books. If you have a lot of missing bodies and a lot of grave markers, the first place to look for the remains is under the grave markers. Before searching either ravine I'd look under the markers on the South Skirmish line.

rch

I thought is was very interesting that although we know there are spurious markers on the field and that other markers have been moved around, every marker inspected by the archaelogists yielded bodily remains. I too would like to have those SSL markers inspected and one of these days I'm sure they will be. Hope it's in my lifetime but probably not. Either Scott or Fox explained why all the markers have not been excavated apart from the time and expense involved. Once they do a "dig" that site is pretty much destroyed. As time goes on and technology improves, they are better able identify and recover artifacts. Therefore they only want to work with as small an area as possible and leave the rest for future digs when their capabilites are much greater than now.

George


George

[George Mabry]

I just ran across something tonight that I thought was interesting concerning Deep Ravine. Kanipe made a statement about riding along a deep gully about 2000 yards from where the monument now stands when he saw a number of bodies in the "gulch." He recognized one of these bodies as being that of Mitch Boyer. In 1877 Lt. Bourke also stated that "as we made our way along the ravine (toward the river)...sticking out from the ground in the ravine was the body of a man, still clad in rough garb of a scout..."

Fox comes along in 1984 and finds what he identifies as part of Mitch Boyer's skull located between markers 33 & 34. These markers are on the divide between Deep Ravine and what Gray calls Ravine X. Do you figure predators moved the bones around or do you question Fox's ID of Boyer?

George

[elisabeth]

Homer S. Wheeler, who was there with Bourke in 1877, says (in Buffalo Days, p. 169):

"A few days before our arrival a severe hail storm had devastated the whole valley, washing out several of the bodies that had been buried near a ravine. The men had been buried where they fell in battle and the graves were marked by stakes driven into the ground at the head and foot of each. An empty cartridge shell containing a slip of paper with the name of the fallen man was placed at the head, so that the bodies could be properly identified when exhumed.

While were were there I reburied all the bodies that had been washed out."

His visit was before that of Mike Sheridan's reburial party. Who knows whether (1) Wheeler reburied people in the right places, (2) stakes were washed out along with the bodies, or (3) Sheridan found all of those helpfully reburied by Wheeler? And (4) whether the Wheeler/Bourke party buried Bouyer -- and the rest -- where they found them ... or somewhere they considered safer from future flash floods?

[PhillyBlair]

Good stuff here everyone, thanks. Elisabeth, you noted where Wheeler said, "...buried near a ravine." I mentioned this earlier....does anyone remember someone saying that bodies were pulled out of a ravine and buried by one of the June 28 burial paries? I seem to recall this, but cannot place where I read it. Sound familiar to anyone?

[Dark Cloud]

Mr. Wheeler is incorrect in one instance, at least. I'm quite sure the 7th did NOT hammer in markers at both the head and feet in 1876, unless just the officers but I don't recall that either, so this might refer to a later burial occurence or the melding of stories by an old man. If they did do that, than the Fouche photographs don't reflect it and it's pretty lonesome at LSH. They barely buried them at all.

[greenpheon]

Storms of great ferocity strike that area quite regularly. I agree that any bodies left in a drainage area was likely swept away long before any burial detail except the first, could inter them. I also think that is why there is little archeological evidence of a fight at MTC Ford.

Greenpheon

[shatonska]

many survivors of the fight who saw the bodies came on the battlefield year after year , why none of them lamented the fact that no markers where placed in that ravine where they saw "28" bodies ?
if i recall well i only found one account of a soldier who spoke of this matter but hundreds of men saw the bodies in the days after the fight and none asked for markers in deep ravine
i don't believe the theory of 28 bodies in a ravine , tens of warriors accounts every phase of the battle described quite well but no account of a desperate fight with so many soldier in a so limited place , a place that was a stronghold and way of infiltration for the indians

[PhillyBlair]

To follow up on what George wrote regarding Kanipe, Kanipe says this to Camp (Custer in 76, pp 95-96):

"...I counted 28 bodies in this gulch." He previously had referred to this as a "deep gully". He says that he "did not go down in the gulch for closer inspection" and then adds: "Having seen these bodies in the gulch I am at a loss to understand the absence of markers there."
Pretty convincing evidence for both deep ravine and the presence of dead there.

Camp also quotes a 1909 letter from W.R. Logan, who was present for the burials (Custer in 76, p. 140):

"You say you have been told that the Seventh Infantry buried the dead in the deep coulee on the battlefield, this coulee lying about six or seven hundred yards over the ridge from where the body of the General was found; that your information is that a squadron of men under Sergeant Heaton carried these men's bodies out of the coulee and buried them in the vicinity. Your information on this point is not correct. The bodies were buried where found."

I've been asking about the men being pulled out to be buried, which Camp had been told from someone as well. At any rate, here are two eyewitnesses that seem (to me) to confirm Deep Ravine and the fact that 28 men were buried in the ravine.

One final point that was new to me but may not be news for some of you -- Logan also says the following to Camp in his letter:

"I was on the battlefield some ten or fifteen days after the burial, and a great many of the bodies had become exposed by the coyotes digging them out of their shallow graves."

It's very likely my own lack of memory, but I don't recall reading this before. I know that one brave soul had returned before the 1877 visit to the field, but I never had in mind that someone had been to the field 10-15 days later.

[d o harris]

Philly---In conversations with Walter Camp Pvt Dennis Lynch, F, stated he saw the infantry removing bodies from the ravine, and that at the time he saw this seven bodies already had been placed South of the ravine. He also made some useful comments regarding the pack train. Unfortunately, the best information I have is that Pvt Lynch was not at the LBH, but on detached duty at the Powder River Camp.

My personal opinion is this: when someone as clearheaded, sensible, and observant as Frederick Benteen says 28 bodies were there, then we are dealing with more than a loose theory.

[crzhrs]

Benteen stated at the RCOI that he rode along the top of the ravine and saw 22 dead soldiers in it. He thought they were killed by by stones and clubs IN the ravine.

He stated the men were unarmed (but the Indians more than likely took the weapons) and the men did not go into it to shoot out of because the sides were too steep. The men had gone into the ravine to hide. He made no personal examination of the bodies.