|
Post by Mike Powell on Jan 31, 2007 9:44:14 GMT -6
This past summer I discussed with Jim Court, retired Superintendant of the battlefield from 1978 - 86, the issue of the excess grave markers. He said that a result of the archeological work in the aftermath of the range fire that it had been evident which markers had no underlying artifacts. Further, he understood that his successor had asked approval to remove those markers, but this was denied on the basis that anything in place more than fifty years was "historical". Is anyone aware of a mapping of these questionable markers?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 31, 2007 10:37:21 GMT -6
Mike Powell:
There is no way to be absolutely certain which are the spurious markers. One can make reasonable deductions, based upon several factors, including the archaeological work that has been done; early photographs; descriptions by survivors,burial parties and early visitors; maps and etc.
I have made preliminary maps of different areas of the Custer field, indicating the results of my research in this regard, but they are not "finished" yet, and hence not available for study. I'm sure that others have made similar maps, although i haven't seen them.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 31, 2007 10:50:19 GMT -6
Wasn't some archaeological work done around markers that showed some markers had no remains there or some markers had more than one person's remains?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Jan 31, 2007 11:13:57 GMT -6
Gordie,
Are you perhaps comfortable enough with the state of your reseach to say if the distribution of questionable markers seems to follow any discrnible pattern or if it seems more heavily concentrated in particular areas? I apologize for trying to smoke you out a little on this, but my child like curiosity is getting the best of me.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 31, 2007 11:17:53 GMT -6
Was no map ever made by Nowlan and Mike Sheridan on their 1877 reburial trip? Nowlan did one showing officers' graves, with dots, unidentified, presumably indicating principal grave areas for enlisted men -- but it's very sketchy. (The one entered as an exhibit at the RCOI.) Disappointing if they did nothing more detailed. Have the records been thoroughly combed, does anyone know?
|
|
dcary
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by dcary on Jan 31, 2007 11:19:29 GMT -6
As an aside, is there somewhere a diagram showing the location of grave markers? I understood that the original burials were near or at where the bodies were found, with some moved later on, but think such a diagram would be very helpful in trying to visualize what might have happened.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 31, 2007 12:09:18 GMT -6
Mike P:
The spurious markers are more or less spread among the "real" ones, and removing them does not appreciably affect the impression one might get, except that some areas start to look less like formal lines of defense. I don't know if you have seen any of the maps of the markers [dcary pease note that there are several], but if you have, you will find that they are all dissimilar, except in the general outlines and groupings of the markers - some not even agreeing as to the number of markers. Of course, there have been a few instances of markers being moved, removed or added since the first placements.
Without getting into a quagmire of questions and debates, which I will not enter [as I said, I am not finished yet], I will give an example of one area - Last Stand Hill or Custer Hill as I choose to call it.
"......The 1884/85 mapping shows 50 markers within the fenced grouping and 4 situated outside it to the northwest. The referenced marker numbers are 59-110, except 92 and 93, within the fence, and 92, 93, 57 and 58 outside. The 1891 mapping shows 53 markers in total, the corrected number [see Burials etc.] being 52. The difference in markers can be partially explained by those for Harrington, Reed, and Boston Custer, which were definitely added after 1890; but the most important consideration is that the 1891 map had too many markers to begin with."
[After several pages of evidence and reasoning] "This process, which has not been totally arbitrary, has resulted in exactly the situation that Godfrey described: 42 bodies on Custer Hill, the only difference being that the new mapping places 10 of these on top of the hill and 32 on the side slope. It is important to note that it is the evidence which has led to the result, and not the other way around. Forty-four of the Custer dead have now been accounted for - the forty-two on the hill, and the two to the northwest [see maps]."
So in this particular area, ten markers are spurious, I figure. Anyway, you get the idea. Enjoy your researches.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Jan 31, 2007 14:36:00 GMT -6
Gordie,
Thanks for the taste. Your opening sentence is certainly in the nature of overview I was hoping for. The detail following makes me look forward to the completion of your research and I hope it will in some fashion become available.
Thanks again.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jan 31, 2007 14:51:22 GMT -6
harpskiddie, With regards to the four dead troopers you mention as being found on Luce ridge, in two paintings he made of the battle, Standing Bear paints these men fleeing in a generally Southerly direction. They are depicted turning in the saddle to fire at a number of warriors who are hotly pursuing them. At least one man has been wounded and so have two of the horses. Without being able to put my hands the second drawings at the moment, in the one in ' Visions of the People, ' interestingly, three of the men are riding what appear to be white or grey horses, whilst the fourth is on a brown horse. Off the top of my head I think he shows the same thing in almost the same way in the other drawing, although I think another of the troopers is shown as wounded as well. As you may or may not know, these drawings were not made as art for arts sake, but were meant to be as accurate a depiction of an event as the artist could make. In this he would have been helped in filling in the detail with oral descriptions from men who were actually there. The same drawing shows a great many moments in the battle, and in one part we see men running to, and actually in Deep ravine, an incident that obviously made its mark on many mens memory. As to who the men you mentioned were, and why they were leaving the battlefield in that direction I suspect we will never know. You suggest that one of them may have been Dose, maybe so, but I suppose it may also be possible that one of them could have been Butler before the men got seperated.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 31, 2007 15:10:47 GMT -6
Shan:
Thanks for your input.
There were supposedly skeletons of four men and three horses. I don't think that Dose was one of them, because he was identified elsewhere - actually in more than one place, as I recall. The color of the horses in the painting would lead one to suppose that the men were orderlies and/or trumpeters [when the bodies were found there would have been no way to know about the color of the horses]. Had they been from E Company, it would have been problematical for them to have made it that far from where the rest of the company died.
Butler's marker has been moved at least once, so it's rather difficult to pinpoint where he died.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 31, 2007 18:40:02 GMT -6
On another thread (can't remember which) I tried to explain why there are some extra markers as determined by Doug Scott's research after the fire. There are sets of two markers in some places where they determined only one body had been buried. When digging the graves, the dirt was shoveled onto each side of the grave so that, when the burial was finished, there appeared to be two mounds. The mounds were given markers when the actual burial place was between the two mounds, thus resulting in some double-marking. I'm sorry if this is not clear, but it's hard for me to explain. Read his book about the 1984 dig (see tinyurl.com/2h54kw which includes a section on spurious markers) or, better yet, come to the LBHA conference in Nebraska this summer. Doug Scott will be there and can explain it much better than I can!
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Feb 1, 2007 14:58:29 GMT -6
Diane:
I utilized some of Fox's findings and the "pairs" theory while working on this particular appendix of my "book." I just omitted all of my reasoning and deductions from the above post.
Gordie
|
|
eamonn
Full Member
debates are brilliant as they bring us together despite our differences
Posts: 156
|
Post by eamonn on Feb 1, 2007 19:51:49 GMT -6
Gordie
what is ur book about?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Feb 1, 2007 20:37:15 GMT -6
Eamonn:
Believe it or not it is about 3,000 pages!! Seriously, it's title, The Fights On The Little Horn, gives the subject away. Several appendices are given over to discussion [?] of several questions surrounding theses fights. It will, when finished, consist of three sections [perhaps individual volumes], being Narrative, Appendices, and Sources .
I had set up Chapters, Appendices and Sources in such a way that I can, if need be, publish them as individual pieces. much like that Amazon dealie that was discussed on some thread or another.
Another few years or so, and I'll be finished. I've only been actively researching since 1960 and writing since 1992 [but not continuously], so I'm a relative newbie at this stuff, as you may have already discovered through our exchange of PMs.
Regards,
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 1, 2007 20:54:01 GMT -6
Gordie
Sign me up for an autographed copy.
Steve
|
|