Were The Bodies Moved?

[strange]

Is it possible for the Indians to have moved any of the bodies around? Perhaps maybe for the convenience of gathering the bodies to certain areas where they can better go about the work of looting and mutilating? Could this change the make up of what we think of the battlefield?

Also, did Benteen or the burial parties that came later do anything to move bodies around. Sorta like "line em up here so we can have a better look of who they are"?

Strictly curious. I'm not sure if I have anything to back this, except maybe a hint in a few Indian accounts that may have got me thinking. Or even some movie portrayals.
When I was a kid, I use to imagine that the Indians would drag each soldier to tent to do those post mortem deeds. Reading of the real events certainly gave me a different picture, but I'm still curious about some of the possibilities.

And by the way, how did the Indians fortify themselves so well with the handling of the bodies? It seems that many of them weren't the least bit squeamish, no matter how intrusive they certainly were (particularly their lack of shyness about ramming objects into the genitals or hacking them off and stuffing the genitals down the throats).
I think the whites may have at least had a substance to rub beneath their nostrils when examining bodies, so as to fight the odors. It is a practice that is done today and I think it was done back then by I don't recall of the facts that led me to this belief. Fill me back in if any of you have a lead.

Stranger

[shan]

Strange,

whilst I'm sure than many, if not most of the bodies were dragged and maybe moved around within a couple of feet from where they fell as the Indians tried to strip them of their clothing, I'm pretty sure that most soldiers lay close to where they were killed. There were naturally a number of wounded that also needed to be dispatched, but if you read the few accounts we have of such happenings, the wounded soldiers were mostly lying where they fell---some pretending to be dead in the hope that they might be left alone---no hope--it didn't work, in which case they were killed where they lay,

As for dragging them to their tents " to do those post mortem deeds," again I think that is highly unlikely. For a start most of the camp lay at least three quarters of a mile away across the river, so the practical side of things would have been difficult, secondly, as far as I know it wasn't something they practiced except in Hollywood that is.

I think we can also discount that the soldiers who came across the bodies moved them around much initially. They would of course have turned a number over so that they could see if they could recognize them, and there is some controversial and confusing accounts that some bodies were taken out of Deep Ravine and buried close by, as well as other accounts which indicate the opposite happened, i.e. that the bodies that lay close to the ravine, were pushed in and buried there.

As to your last point. Almost all Indian tribes mutilated the enemy when it came to inter tribal warfare, it was common practice, just as it had been amongst the Celtic and Germanic tribes in Europe. They lived in a world where violence might happen at any time, it was kill or be killed. Beside this, unlike us--- they had to seek out and kill their own food almost every day of their lives, they were used to blood and guts whether it be animal or human. Remember too that in the scenario that you are talking about, they had just killed Custers men, so that in the hour or two they spent looting and mutilating, the bodies wouldn't have started to decompose, and as a result the smell would have been as bad as it was two days later.

Shan

[joewiggs]

May 9, 2010 8:24:57 GMT -5 strange said:

Is it possible for the Indians to have moved any of the bodies around? Perhaps maybe for the convenience of gathering the bodies to certain areas where they can better go about the work of looting and mutilating? Could this change the make up of what we think of the battlefield?back this, except maybe a hint in a few Indian accounts that
And by the way, how did the Indians I think the
Stranger

There is no way of our truly knowing exactly what occurred on the field of battle with, possibly, one exception; the soldier witnesses from the environs of Weir's Point pretty much confirm that warriors were seen firing into the bodies of men as they lay upon the ground.

I can not recall where but, I believe that Charles Kuhlman spoke of an Indian claim that Custer's body was moved from the knoll towards Weir's Point as a token offering of a gift to the soldiers of their dear, dead, brave commander. This story is patently false as no Indian at that battle could have recognized the General in the midst of heat, bellowing dust, and alkaline dirt that permeated the entire death scene reducing visibility to a matter of inches rather than feet.

Even in the aftermath of the battle, women, children, and old men swarmed the knoll gashing and hacking the bodies beyond belief.

Any actual movement of bodies would have probably been the result of stripping them of their clothing which was, subsequently, worn by the warriors or confiscated by the women and children.

Bradley's depiction of the sleeping Custer laying in repose with a gentle smile upon his face as if asleep was a Victorian Age cover-up designed to spare the General's wife from unnecessary distress. After two days, every body was bloated and black in the lower extremities were blood settled and, wounds were open and saturated with huge flies and other carrion feasting upon the remains. Many identifications were based upon clothing worn rather than facial confirmation.

As for the horrific smell days later, it was so horrendous that men violently regurgitated while tending to the burial chores. Even today, there is not much that one can do to avoid the smell of a rotting carcass other than placing a gob of Vaseline under the nostrils and/or light up a huge, stinking stogie to off-set the aroma.

[Cutter]

I always thought the description of Custer's body was for Libbie's benefit. If the general's body was in such good shape, and they managed to get comanche back, one would think they would try to bring back Custer's remains back too, maybe using salt.
I've read in one of the indian accounts that the flies were unusually heavy that summer.
I've read somewhere that the smell lingered on for years after the fight.
So, a "scene of ghastly, sickening horror", was just what was found.

[joewiggs]

Ironically Cutter, for awhile, I completely brought into Bradley's description because I thought; why lie! Although I am of an average intelligence, I subconsciously accepted what I knew to be consciously impossible;the decomposing of the human body ceasing for a "Hero!"

On some psychological level, we sometimes gently succumb to a mythical plane were the good and brave somehow( in death) avoid the realistic results of the horrific injuries that are associated with war.

I think it is very human see valor when men die even though the truth may be far different.

[Cutter]

Only in the movies I'm afraid Joe.
Libbie was a veteran of the realities of the west, and so I'm sure she knew the truth.

[strange]

I see nothing quite wrong with the official account of finding Custer's body. If there were any cover up then I imagine that they would have left out the fact about the arrow shaft sticking out of his penis. Several men were identified perfectly well and the Indians just may not have had the time or the inkling to mutilate everyone beyond recognition (I finally spelled it right!).

In fact, actually, I think the officers who were not identified are in the minority of the bodies seen that day. There is Tom who almost went unrecognized, then I think there is another couple of persons who are right at the tip of my tongue. Every one else seems to have been identified rather well. Benteen didn't bring Custer's body back because they probably did not consider a top priority for the moment. Benteen was still functioning in the active army which was needed elsewhere. To even do so much as to salt Custer's body and wrap him in a blanket would have probably compromised crucial supplies that they'd need later for food preservation (for salt) or warmth and or shelter (for blankets or tent materials, etc).

I don't quite understand how they'd see a vague "smile" on Custer's face with the type of facial hair he was sporting. I have a theory (after drawing him many times) that he's smiling in quite a few photographs but that the shapes of his lips are always obstructed by his mustache, thus he always appears stern in his photographs (no matter what his mouth is doing). I imagine the only way to really see a blatant smile on Custer is for him to open his mouth (which is never really done in the pictures at least).

"Sleepyness" I can back up. The shape of Custer's eyes have always carried a drowzy feeling. I would be more suspicious if he looked "wide awake" (as some bodies actually will if the die with their eyes open and a sharp expression on their face). Custer has never often looked very "wide awake" from his photos. There is one picture of him as a cadet where he really looks pepped, but absolutely nearly every other picture has always shown him in a sleepy type of look, sorta like a relaxed-ness (even in the first known photo). No amount of manglement, other than the complete obliteration of the eyes or the head, would take away Custer's sleepy look (I imagine). That is also why many actors like to portray Custer with the slow paced sophistication type of delivery as you'll see here www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsu7N5hFqFo , and you'll also have a trace of it in Richard Mulligan's Custer from Little Big Man. The real Custer was apparently more of a silly person (as in "fun" or maybe even "nervous" or "shy"), so Errol Flynn (from what I've seen) actually has some fine accuracy in this particular area (accuracy which is probably not always so easy to find in the overall film itself or later films).

I also heard that there was a lot of blood on the face. Here is a drawing I made a while ago to try and depict Custer as he finally lay. Its more "alive" than it oughtta be, but these are the wounds he apparently had. I wish I had done the shoulder better (I might have to reupload a better version because photobucket could be decreasing resolution).

I'm hoping to do more drawings to represent Custer's body and the deaths at Little Bighorn. No one else really has, except the Indians who made their drawings of the bodies as they lay. This will put me way ahead of other artists if I do it before them (which is my scheme).

Strange

[tbw]

Your renditions as always strange are excellent. However, I do have one request that goes with your closing statement... Your rendition of the aftermath of Last Stand Hill, or the last moments of Last Stand Hill. Now that's one for the books! Although admittedly, that as the rest of your art would be worth quite a bit.

[strange]

May 15, 2010 11:23:08 GMT -5 tbw said:

Your renditions as always strange are excellent. However, I do have one request that goes with your closing statement... Your rendition of the aftermath of Last Stand Hill, or the last moments of Last Stand Hill. Now that's one for the books! Although admittedly, that as the rest of your art would be worth quite a bit.

That is what I plan to do. A drawing of the bodies as they were found on last stand hill. The major problem is that I have not tackled landscapes or heaps of dead people, so for now I might just be doing them one at a time but eventually I want to do the entire broadness. I'm getting amazing better with a lot of my drawings, if you see the new ones I posted on the other board, you'll see that I really turned the corner and I'm hoping to keep turning that corner but I can't always guarantee it. It comes and goes.

The last "moments" have already been tackled regularly. I might try it, but its not a top priority since so many other people have made some pretty good depictions of the battle action.

[joewiggs]

I am absolutely amazed by the talent various members of the forum have displayed! Great work!

[tbw]

Absolutely Joe! Both Shan and Strange share an absolute talent that is a joy to see. And I for one am glad that they both have shared their works with us. Other collections of works, for instance those that Cutter has brought to our attention, also shared here, have much enriched our studies and hopefully this all will continue. Without these good works this forum wouldn't be what it is today. For that I thank each and every one of you.

[shan]

Strange,

I'm afraid I may just have beaten you to making drawings and paintings of the dead on LSH. But don't feel bad, you are only a young man an I am old, and given that I have been making drawings and paintings of this battle since I was a child, I have a bit of a head start over you.

Like most people, I initially bought into the romantic version of this battle, so that for twenty years my work showed a noble heroic Custer standing up there with all guns blazing as mounted Indians swirled around a diminishing group of men. The net result was that the work tended to look like many of those Victorian paintings that show men in battle appearing more like they were on a stage somewhere playing Macbeth or Hamlet, than actually caught up in the awful reality of being scared S---less- that they were about to die. It was only in later years that I came to see through all that crap---if you'll excuse my language, and as a result I decided that I wanted to present the battle as it really was.

However, you as an artist will know what I mean when I say that one can't make a very successful painting of a scene in which both sides are hidden away in ditches and draws, and with a battlefield covered in black smoke and dust, with nothing much to see, you might just as well make an abstract painting of it. So I decided to concentrate on getting in close and personal. Having read those Hardorff books of Indian accounts of the battle, I found them full of wonderful tiny details concerning the actions and deaths of maybe one or two men or even horses.

Whoa-----sorry to ramble on like this, I hadn't meant this to be a long post, as usual, I thought had something to say and could say it in 2 lines, but I don't seem to have a mind that works like that. So, to cut a long story short, I was a member of the British Custer society for several years, and sold several of my paintings to members over the years, but I found that they didn't like the ones that tried to show the awful truth of what happens to a man when he is hit in the face with a war club. This in turn made me go even further--- I tend to think that this is part of an artists role, by that I mean I think we should be prepared to show both the beauty that most people miss, but also to present them with things they would rather not face--- so I made a series of small paintings of the bodies as they would have been seen by those that came across them two days later.

Naturally everybody was appalled and thought me sick, but as I say, this is part of the role of the artist. I suppose what I'm trying to say is don't be fooled by those descriptions of the bodies. Those people lived in a different time, they had different ideas about what could, and couldn't be talked about or said. In England it was a case of keeping a stiff upper lip, you said little and bore it like a man.

Custer would have looked as awful as anybody else---either that or he was indeed some kind of God. It's just possible he wasn't as mutilated as some, but that was just chance. And don't believe those stories of Indians recognizing him, 99.9% wouldn't have know him from Adam, and it was like a blooded, bloated, blackened, stiff Adam that he lay amongst his men when they came across him.

Blue Dog ----Shan

[Cutter]

I've always thought the ledger drawings made by Red Horse were as dramatic as any other depiction of the fight.
The guidons being flown upside down always made me wonder.

tnwcreations.com/forums/index.php?topic=3748.0

[strange]

Actually, I'm somewhat happy. I saw some of your paintings from your website and it seemed very clear that you were good at drawing the naked bloated people that would've went well for the Little Bighorn aftermath. I was gonna suggest that you give it a try, but I'm relieved to read you already have.

I too have experienced people calling me sick. The lack of photos taken of the bodies gave me a simple need for documentation or giving people some type of visual. One of these days, I may also want to start compiling some simple diagrams to show were everyone was hit, etc (kinda like the diagrams you'd see for the Buddy Holly crash victims. I can post it soon.).

I've also thought about similar difficulties in wanting to depict the battle. The only thing I'll disagree on is the smoke or dust cloud. I think the people who say that sort of thing are usually trying to cover up for what they really know (and that includes both Indians and Soldiers). But thats just my opinion.

Strange

[tbw]

I think most of us who come to forums like this are in search of the truth, because each of us knows, that truth has not been found or told correctly for over 134 years. And each of us tend to in our own minds, through opinions portray, this battle like the various paintings and tapestries that only myth and legend provide. Usually these are compartmentalized views encompassing but a small fragment of the greater whole. So generally what is ridiculously pompous and mostly Victorian comes off as something that’s been told over and over and over, again and again and again, and for myself has never addressed the truth and never will. Then we get the modern impressionism, something akin to Picasso (and a very good friends’ contributions have said in the past, although not exactly in these same words ); ‘where someone throws paint at the wall to see if it sticks and impresses someone.’ This can take many forms and shapes, and not all are true representations, for one reason or another, but usually, hidden deep in there, in a blotch or a corner, or a small crease or crevice - there is truth to those who can see it. And finally we get to the real artist, those who perhaps more than anything contribute to this works of art, to this subject, that no man has ever considered; What looks right with that portrait, instead of what looks wrong! Indeed, it takes a fine eye to distinguish a great work of art and appraise it as such. And we, all, are, in our own small way, painters and perhaps more, appraisers of what is worth more, or we wouldn’t be here. Indeed Cutter, indeed, there is a truth to Red Horse’s painting that no one realizes, and it isn’t Victorian in nature, its more Picasso, yet throws it right at you and doesn’t hide it. And every Indian did this, not just in his works of art, but also in their words as well. Its getting at the impressionistic meaning that brings value.

Most today don’t buy into the “romantic version” of this battle. And for most who don’t, that means, while they appreciate looking at the ’fine art’ of the Victorian age, they’d much prefer the truthful representations Picasso could have created and match that to something original in ’nature’; that comes closer to the truth of the 1001 participants who did know. Indeed the pompous Victorian view that Custer did this or that in valorous offensive splendor, for this or that assumed reason, other than the full purpose of subduing the thousands of Indians before him and moments later; “like they were on a stage somewhere playing Macbeth or Hamlet, than actually caught up in the awful reality of being scared S---less- that they were about to die”; speaks volumes of their vain theories. Theories that in the final stages, they can not explain to the satisfaction of all. Yet there were warriors who did state that ’moment in time’ when Custer and his men knew that, “they were about to die.” It is in reality, these ‘small fragments’ of reality that when all brought together on one huge canvas, makes the painting complete.

In our minds eye, we all tend to take small insignificant untruths and rely upon them as being solid fact. To complete the tapestries in our thoughts, what was in the hidden parts of the battle, what was thought to be concealed or hidden, was indeed more observable and seen than what most would believe.

Rarely does anyone accept the truth of what happened at the LBH. Rarely is anything seen in the reality of what really took place. On some forums, it seems one has to be someone of ’privilege’ or ’renown’ to be accepted and passed into the ’sorority’ there. And one must ascribe themselves to the ’master’ view of events, or be chastised or criticized for not conforming to ’their view’, a right of passage, one supposes, like any sorority requires. What they don’t realize is that we are all ’artist in our own right’, we all are ’appraisers in our own right’, and while they don’t appreciate the fine horrible truth of what happened at the LBH from the perspective of each individual artist, here we do.

What needs to be brought out here, is what others have missed. To present to the forum things that they may not want to be confronted with, like the awful truth about the MTF - Nye Cartwright/Calhoun Ridge episodes, and/or in association with this, Custer’s trail and speed down the right bank. To force the issue of ’truth or fiction’, to bring to the fore, those things that were said by Custer’s own men, ’that quite simply are not believed‘! And to test them against the pompous Victorian view, that they were and still are wrong. Quite naturally, when I attempted this on other forums, I was chastised and criticized for my view. But I wanted so much more for other people, just like me, who held opposing views, not to have to pass a ’sorority test’ in order to express themselves on a forum, and thus you see before you, what now was that result. Here, I don’t want anyone to feel alienated by their convictions, nor fooled by those who think and claim themselves ’superior’. And most of all, we must remember that Custer and his men lived in a different era, spoke differently than what we do today, had different ideas about battle, and how it was to be pursued. We cannot possibly ever compare that to ’anything’ modern, nor I believe, should we ever try.

Unfortunately, what can’t be done is to say things on any forum in one line or in just a couple of lines and make it sound sane. One liners are for ’stand up comics’ and ’show people’. And they who try that are perhaps the worst impressionist when it comes to this battle. And so, I’m not to be classified among them.

Today we seem to factionalize ourselves into groups of people who either see ’villains or hero’s’ in those who participated at the battle of the LBH. And one supposes this is a natural tendency to do. Some love the crassness and silliness of Benteen, others admire the bravery of Custer and the list goes on and on, with Keogh, or this one or that one. But in reality, it paints one’s view into a corner. It’s like starting Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel all over again, and trying to emulate it, and in the end getting caught in the wet paint in one corner of the room while the wet paint dries. It’s a perfect rendition in every way, you’ll be lauded for centuries as someone who emulated to perfection Michelangelo. The worst part about it is, you have an appointment with Donald Trump at the Trump Plaza in 20 minutes that’s worth millions to you. What do you do? Indeed most of us do this. We paint ourselves into a canted view of what happened at the Lbh by choosing someone to ’like’ or ’love’ over another, and ultimately miss out on the value of truth.

And finally, ’cherry picking’. While some may claim that I do this, I do not. In fact most of what I present is well rounded in most ways. Sure, I do have to, as most do, say that someone ’lied’ or ‘misrepresented the facts’, that’s just the nature of this beast for all of us, and I do mean, for all of us. But I do think, that in the end, when or if the truth ever comes out, it will be the person who didn’t put a lot of spin to “most” of what they all had to say. I think the trick is to listen carefully to the “participants” and what those today are trying to say about them. If they say that Curley lied, that Martin lied, that Kanipe lied, that Goldin lied, that Thompson lied (IN ANY WAY) in total, what are they really saying? I in fact, make no such claim. And in fact, believe each and every one of them, and - state it! While I may not believe Walter Mason Camp did the right thing, I believe what they had to say, as opposed to what he misrepresented. Which was right, which was wrong?