With the discussion of old graves sites on here this may

[George-CT]

be a good time to post these. Seems like everyplace has a place called Custers Park, or something out that way, but these are of where it happened. The Black face stone in the middle is where Custer was found. On the second time we passed thru there there had been a grass fire and they had people with detectors there with golf tee's marking items but no digging. I would of loved to of been able to be part of that detecting group. They were writing down direction of the shells, type, etc. I never did see anything printed on the results of all that.

George-CT

 

[George-CT]

where Custer had passed thru also. Here is one of them. Geo-CT

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

visiting this battle site. There are several versions of where Custer was killed. Many believe it to have happened as he approached the river to enter the village and his body was carried to the spot where it was found...others believe he was killed where his body was found. He was identified by a Indian women who had a child by him years earlier and his body was not mutilated like some of the others. Kelley (Texas)

 

[Royal]

boy it is big country.

I read in a detecting mag, I think it was, where they had some detectorist helping the archies check the area over and found some guns and a number of places there the troops had made stands. They could tell by the number of shell casings and such in a small area.

If I remember right it changed much of what the historians thought happened there. From what I have read, Custer was a moron and got his men killed to stroke his ego. Dang shame. I hope to get the chance to visit it again some day.

Thanks for posting it buddy

 

[General Ray]

n/t

 

[TexasCharley]

The story that George & Tom Custer's bodies were not mutilated was put out in order to spare their wives the details. Abt 20 yrs back the actual findings were discovered hidden in some long-overlooked boxes at either Library of Congress or Smithsonian. Both bodies were severely mutilated. I think Wild West magazine had a story on it. Either that or True West before it went slick.

National Geographic had a terrific writeup on the Custer battlefield archaeology several years back. Again, they were crediting the Indians with having Henrys when the odds are much greater they were '66 Winchesters.

I was in Helena, Montana for a Western Writers of America convention in '94 and a tour of the Custer battlefield was part of the agenda. One of the things you'll notice is that a lot of the stones are 'paired'--that is, you see 2 stones close together & then a little way away there are another 2 stones close together. That's the old Army 'buddy system.' Those guys literally fought back-to-back & died together. You'll also note that, except for Last Stand Hill, the markers are strung out along the hillside. Custer was still apparently in a column of fours when the Indians came boiling up out of the coulees. There is a cluster of markers on Last Stand Hill where Custer's marker is and another cluster farther down the hill. According to the park ranger, they may not be legitimate. Some of the old timers used to claim that they had a lot of markers left over & no specific site for 'em, so they just clustered 'em together just downslope from Custer's marker.

At the investigation one of the witnesses was Curley Crow, a scout who was with Custer but got into the bushes & hid. He apparently watched at least part of the battle from his hiding place. One of the things he talked about was "man sit down, work on gun." The cartridges used then were copper-cased, Ben

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

CUSTER'S FALL, The Native American Side Of The Story, by David Humphreys Miller? I found this book to be interesting and parts of it has merit. The down side of the book is that some of the information was given from memory years after the battle, sorta like the situation of the Alamo story given years after the Battle of the Alamo. You must also consider the fact that when the dust settled, only the Indians were left standing and as such, it is possible that their version has some truth in it. Kelley (Texas)

 

[Cupajo]

It bothers me to know that these issues were common knowledge and yet men died because some one (probably many someones!) somewhere didn't care!!

CJ

 

[George-CT]

National Geographic mag also. I enjoyed the story on Custer and the different thoughts on how the battle went. I remember they talking about some going down a side pass, better position, escape, who knows. Its interesting to read all this stuff growing up, even more interesting to see if first hand. I'm sure some of it gets twisted a little. Still while standing there where it happened, it sends chills up your spine thinking about it.

George-CT

 

[TexasCharley]

I read, among others, Charles M. Robinson III's book on the Custer battle, which has won several awards. Charlie's a good friend of mine--we's had drinks & chased gals together (he actually caught one, but I didn't). He used a lot of 'native American' sources for his references as well as a bunch of primary documents. He's pretty much the history department at Texas Southmost, a Jr. College in Brownsville. He's also got a lot of publications out. He's not in a 'publish or perish' environment--JCs aren't like that--but he's a fine writer. His is probably the best book on the Custer fiasco I've ever read. Most of the rest are either 'gallant Custer' or 'Custer had it comin'.' His is balanced.