|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 6, 2015 18:28:54 GMT -6
Michael, The second point: the north fork of MTC, is what I believe you are looking for. Best wishes, Fred. Whew! Got it! Thanks for your patience - and please check out my new thread on DeRudio. Thanks! Michael
|
|
|
Post by shan on Sept 7, 2015 9:10:25 GMT -6
Fred,
thanks for that comprehensive list of the artefacts and bones found around Luce ridge, however; yes I'm afraid there is a however, having said that I find myself a little confused.
We talked a few years back about the paintings Standing Bear made of the battle, { there were, if I remember correctly, three of them, all big, and all fairly similar} and more especially about the four riders he showed trying to escape towards what looks like it might well be either the Nye Cartwright or Luce ridge area. The riders are being pursued by a number of warriors, and again if memory serves me, { I haven't got the book to hand, a couple of the men have arrow wounds as do a couple of horses, one of which is a grey. One of the man has aspire down his trouser leg so he maybe a sergeant
Now ~~ your list I states that at least 3 horse skeletons, and the bones of at least three men were found on two sites, In which case, I wonder; could these be the remnants of the men we see in Standing Bear's picture? But then you have also listed that two human skeletons and numerous horse bones were found North of Butler ridge East of Deep coulee.
Personally, I suspect that one of these sites must have been the place where these men's break for freedom came to an abrupt, and for them, fatal end. If not, then given the number of finds you list as being found scattered across these areas,then it seems to me to indicate that the fighting around Luce and Nye was a lot heaver than I had hither to suspected, and not only that. It suggests that Wolf Tooth and Big Foots warriors were better armed that is usually suggested, for when you think about it, I can't see incoming fire originating from around MTF being able to cause so many casualties both to man and beast.
Montrose, I'm afraid that I'm am one of those lurkers you referred to back awhile, so I'll immediately own up to the fact that I haven't posted for well over a year of more now. As a long time lurker, I guess it must be 8 or 9 years now, maybe even more since I first found the site, I've seen the same discussions come around time and time again, and, sad to say, I've seen almost all of them generally fail to be resolved. That's not to say I haven't learnt anything, I certainly have, and indeed have had cause to change my mind about a number of things several times over. But not being a military man, nor a historian, I can only bow to the expertise of your good self and people like Fred and a number of others on both boards, who have contributed so much to the debate.
Sad to say, we don't have access to the voices from the other side; I'm talking about the descendants of the Sioux and Cheyenne who fought in the battle, not those wispy spirits from beyond the grave, but I guess that their present day descendants know no more than we do, for all our poking and prying.
Shan { David,}
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 7, 2015 10:44:59 GMT -6
David,
It is always nice to see you here, however intermittent it may be.
Those skeletons always posed a problem for me, but one of the best sources I have seen-- replete with map and guide-- is Jerome Greene's booklet, Evidence and the Custer Enigma. In it he has a map notated with all the finds throughout the battlefield, excluding, I believe the Fox-Scott finds of 1984-1985, though the edition I have-- 1995-- may have included the general relationship of their finds to the battlefield. Greene's work pretty much excludes any military personnel from human remains (and the body placements and markers go a long way to confirm things). It is impossible to say who the remains belong to, but I would not exclude Native Americans... while I do exclude whites... or at least Custer's troopers.
Butler and Foley were found and their approximate locations noted with markers, though Butler's remains incorrect... slightly. They account for two of the runaways and I think Bailey of Company I is a third. The fourth remains a mystery and if I had to put a name to it I would put Nathan Short's to Marker 128. I brought that little gem up in my book, but to date, no one has remarked on it, one way of the other. Interesting!! Sometimes I wonder just how much attention some people pay to this whole thing.
Hope you are doing well, David.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 7, 2015 14:42:23 GMT -6
David, It is always nice to see you here, however intermittent it may be. Those skeletons always posed a problem for me, but one of the best sources I have seen-- replete with map and guide-- is Jerome Greene's booklet, Evidence and the Custer Enigma. In it he has a map notated with all the finds throughout the battlefield, excluding, I believe the Fox-Scott finds of 1984-1985, though the edition I have-- 1995-- may have included the general relationship of their finds to the battlefield. Greene's work pretty much excludes any military personnel from human remains (and the body placements and markers go a long way to confirm things). It is impossible to say who the remains belong to, but I would not exclude Native Americans... while I do exclude whites... or at least Custer's troopers. Butler and Foley were found and their approximate locations noted with markers, though Butler's remains incorrect... slightly. They account for two of the runaways and I think Bailey of Company I is a third. The fourth remains a mystery and if I had to put a name to it I would put Nathan Short's to Marker 128. I brought that little gem up in my book, but to date, no one has remarked on it, one way of the other. Interesting!! Sometimes I wonder just how much attention some people pay to this whole thing. Hope you are doing well, David. Best wishes, Fred. Or people just accept that you probably have a better idea than anyone else about whom may be planted where. Beth
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 7, 2015 14:48:36 GMT -6
Or people just accept that you probably have a better idea than anyone else about whom may be planted where. You have, from the first moment, been one of my favorite young ladies... or favorite people, period. You continue to impress me with everything you write. And of course, the flattery helps, but that aside... nothing changes. Thank you. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 7, 2015 15:24:00 GMT -6
Or people just accept that you probably have a better idea than anyone else about whom may be planted where. You have, from the first moment, been one of my favorite young ladies... or favorite people, period. You continue to impress me with everything you write. And of course, the flattery helps, but that aside... nothing changes. Thank you. Very best wishes, Fred. Fred, I noticed where you placed Nathan Short. I thought it was much preferable to Kanipe "helping" Camp by recollecting 30 years later that YES, come to think of it, Nathan Short DID write his insignia on his cover in a certain way. What a skunk! The damage people do when they try to "help" historical researchers is to be much lamented. I left the USMC 26 years ago and I often amaze old buddies with the things I remember - but I would never claim to remember an insignificant detail like THAT. Michael
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 7, 2015 15:57:23 GMT -6
You have, from the first moment, been one of my favorite young ladies... or favorite people, period. You continue to impress me with everything you write. And of course, the flattery helps, but that aside... nothing changes. Thank you. Very best wishes, Fred. Fred, I noticed where you placed Nathan Short. I thought it was much preferable to Kanipe "helping" Camp by recollecting 30 years later that YES, come to think of it, Nathan Short DID write his insignia on his cover in a certain way. What a skunk! The damage people do when they try to "help" historical researchers is to be much lamented. I left the USMC 26 years ago and I often amaze old buddies with the things I remember - but I would never claim to remember an insignificant detail like THAT. Michael When I was 10 my hometown was hit by a very bad (F5) tornado. It's the type of thing that you have very clear and distinct memories of even though it's happened close to 45 years ago. Here is the problem I find I have--I 'remember' things that I could not have experienced because it's something that was so will discussed after the event and even to this day. (there is even a Facebook page for the event) My experiences of knowing I'm recalling what other people's experiences were as if they were my own is one of the reasons I tend to discount battle stories years after the battle. Memories are a funny thing and corruptible even when you are trying to be honest--even when you think the event was so memorable you would never forget them. Beth
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 7, 2015 16:44:26 GMT -6
Fred, I noticed where you placed Nathan Short. I thought it was much preferable to Kanipe "helping" Camp by recollecting 30 years later that YES, come to think of it, Nathan Short DID write his insignia on his cover in a certain way. What a skunk! The damage people do when they try to "help" historical researchers is to be much lamented. I left the USMC 26 years ago and I often amaze old buddies with the things I remember - but I would never claim to remember an insignificant detail like THAT. Michael When I was 10 my hometown was hit by a very bad (F5) tornado. It's the type of thing that you have very clear and distinct memories of even though it's happened close to 45 years ago. Here is the problem I find I have--I 'remember' things that I could not have experienced because it's something that was so will discussed after the event and even to this day. (there is even a Facebook page for the event) My experiences of knowing I'm recalling what other people's experiences were as if they were my own is one of the reasons I tend to discount battle stories years after the battle. Memories are a funny thing and corruptible even when you are trying to be honest--even when you think the event was so memorable you would never forget them. Beth I agree Beth. I would say that as far as the LBH story goes, some people years later tried to "help" researchers out. I believe they didn't think they were doing any harm, since their "help" came in the form of confirming a conclusion that the researcher was already prepared to make. I put Kanipe in this category.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 7, 2015 16:56:14 GMT -6
I agree Beth. I would say that as far as the LBH story goes, some people years later tried to "help" researchers out. I believe they didn't think they were doing any harm, since their "help" came in the form of confirming a conclusion that the researcher was already prepared to make. I put Kanipe in this category. I agree totally. There is a huge difference between letting the evidence from the events tell the story and having a theory about an event and then finding the stories that confirm it. I believe that so many LBH researchers fall into the later category, especially Camp. i understand that people are passionate about how they believe events unfolded on that campaign but frankly being passionate should never outweigh evidence. If you find something that doesn't fit your theory you can not just dismiss it as a 'false data point' you have to figure how why that account is so different. (like Peter Thompson's story for example). Camp's body of work is a valuable resource but one has to make their own conclusions and not let others lead them down a bridle path. Beth
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 7, 2015 19:15:54 GMT -6
I agree totally. There is a huge difference between letting the evidence from the events tell the story and having a theory about an event and then finding the stories that confirm it. I believe that so many LBH researchers fall into the later category, especially Camp. i understand that people are passionate about how they believe events unfolded on that campaign but frankly being passionate should never outweigh evidence. If you find something that doesn't fit your theory you can not just dismiss it as a 'false data point' you have to figure how why that account is so different. (like Peter Thompson's story for example). Camp's body of work is a valuable resource but one has to make their own conclusions and not let others lead them down a bridle path. Beth Well said Beth!
|
|
|
Post by shan on Sept 9, 2015 7:00:19 GMT -6
Fred,
the various collections of animal bones scattered across these sites I can understand, but dead Indians? Firstly, come the end of the Custer part of the battle; they were left in control of the field. So okay, there was a deal of looting and celebration to be got through before they had time to think of other things, but whilst all that was going on there will have been those whose main concern was finding their loved ones.
These people would have been scouring the landscape asking everyone they met had they seen their son, father, brother, maybe even grandfather in a few case. Dead or wounded horses would have been obvious targets to check out as would gullies draws and ravines.
If we add up the reported finds of human remains you gave, we seem to be looking at least five complete skeletons plus the bones of a few other which might mean we are talking about one or two more.
Now this is a bit of a puzzle, for whilst I realise that most of the army dead were found and noted, we also have Indian testimony that they collected up their dead and took them away, { the general run of the figures they gave for the number of dead they suffered seems to tally very well, } plus, as far as I'm aware, there were no accounts of them mentioning there being at least five men missing.
David, i
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Sept 9, 2015 7:27:15 GMT -6
Shan,
The Plains Indians placed their dead above ground in remote areas. I do not mean just combat deaths, but all deaths, disease, old age, bad luck, reading the other board. Remote area means not where they would camp in the future, so badlands away from water.
So finding 2 Indian skeletons in a remote area is no surprise. (The DNA of the skeletons was Indian, post is on both boards, but I stink at searching proboards). (So someone smarter than me can link it, or not).
I see no evidence that these remains are linked to 25 Jun 1876. You cite the circumstantial evidence that they are not.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 9, 2015 10:35:52 GMT -6
... the various collections of animal bones scattered across these sites I can understand, but dead Indians? David, Do not forget, there was a fairly large number of unattached male warriors in that congregation. Even if some rode in with friends, they could have been anywhere in that tangled mass. There was also the action on the 26th to consider, plus the reasonably early departure in the late afternoon of the 26th. There is also the off-chance the bones could have been from some time before the battle or later, since that area was frequented by Indians for years. Another point to consider is we do not know how many bones were found or if the skeletons were complete. Over the weeks and months following the battle, predators could easily have moved things around, and if fact, were reported to have done so. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|