|
Post by markland on May 17, 2006 8:32:52 GMT -6
Gary, your explanation does explain something about that photo which has always bugged me. No blood! Even if the wounds to the throat and chest had been inflicted post-mortem, as well as some of the arrows, there should be blood on the body. Yet, all I see are remnants of blood on the underside of his right forearm and on the right side, exactly the place which would have been missed if someone had poured a couple of buckets of water on the body to better show the wounds. As far as the arrows go, I suspect that they are the original shots. After the Fetterman battle, those dead were carried to the fort where the arrows were cut-off or removed.
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 17, 2006 8:55:15 GMT -6
Gary, great work. Spot on. I'd never even wondered about the blood (dumb), writing that off to the mutilations being post-mortem. And in the 50-50 split between Bell's and Barnitz's accounts, I'd kind of taken Bell's word for it ... largely, I now realise, just because I was so pleased to have got hold of his book! But yes, there are enough ambiguities in his photo story to allow for this interpretation. I'm sure you're right. Billy too. If they were war arrows (which they presumably would be) they'd be barbed, and most unlikely to fall out in transit.
Excellent.
It's just dawned on me that Bell's "as he lay" may mean exactly this: that it's not a temporal "as", in the sense of "while he lay" but a descriptive one -- "in the manner in which he lay". So in fact they could both be saying the same thing after all ...
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 17, 2006 10:19:46 GMT -6
This came to me as I, of all things, was taking a shower. Wasn't (and still is) the custom, if possible, to wash the dead prior to burial?
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 17, 2006 12:10:48 GMT -6
There are several things about that photo that don't look right. I, as always, claim no expertise in such things but, when you click on it to enlarge it, it really looks fake. I have to wonder why his body is so ghastly white when his face and neck appear to be a normal color. I also am trying to figure out what is around his neck. It appears to be a collar. Why is that swatch of blood so far from the (apparent) fatal arrow in his chest? Also, Gary and Elisabeth, I think you are correct about this being a recreation. I haven't ever seen anyone killed by an arrow, but I doubt they would fall down straight like that although I suppose the Indians could have straightened him out while they were slashing him. Billy, I get some of my best ideas in the shower! I would think they would clean the body if they were going to bury it in a casket as opposed to dumping it in a mass grave, especially if they wanted the wounds to be visible, but wouldn't they remove the arrows while or before they did that? It's all very strange. Was the National Enquirer around in those days?
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 17, 2006 12:41:56 GMT -6
I think that the mark around his neck is where his throat was cut.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 17, 2006 12:43:03 GMT -6
There is another famous photo of a dead white (not sure if it's a soldier/settler) with a US soldier kneeling next to it (The soldier has a goatee and/or mustache and his hat his folded up on one side). The body appears to have been dead for quite a while, and has arrows protruding from it. I'll have to try and find the photo in one of my books to get more exact on it and who it was.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 17, 2006 12:55:07 GMT -6
I think that the mark around his neck is where his throat was cut. I see what you mean. Thanks, Gary. Diane
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 17, 2006 12:57:10 GMT -6
There are several things about that photo that don't look right. I, as always, claim no expertise in such things but, when you click on it to enlarge it, it really looks fake. I have to wonder why his body is so ghastly white when his face and neck appear to be a normal color. I also am trying to figure out what is around his neck. It appears to be a collar. Why is that swatch of blood so far from the (apparent) fatal arrow in his chest? Also, Gary and Elisabeth, I think you are correct about this being a recreation. I haven't ever seen anyone killed by an arrow, but I doubt they would fall down straight like that although I suppose the Indians could have straightened him out while they were slashing him. Billy, I get some of my best ideas in the shower! I would think they would clean the body if they were going to bury it in a casket as opposed to dumping it in a mass grave, especially if they wanted the wounds to be visible, but wouldn't they remove the arrows while or before they did that? It's all very strange. Was the National Enquirer around in those days? Around his neck? That was a Cheyenne bow-tie ;D All is see is the cut throat. There seems to be some darkness on the right side of his neck that looks like a piece of cloth. It could just be grass from the field he is lying in. Remember, many of those arrows, if not all, were inflicted post-mortem. What did Bell say was the cause of death? Somewhere in the recesses of memory I seem to recollect that he had also been shot with a gun/guns. The clolor? I would suggest that is due to wearing long pants, shirt, etc. all the time. Notice his right forearm is darker (beyond the blood) than the upper arm. I don't believe the flash created that brighter white or the underside of his jaw would have caught the reflection. This is a case for Brust! Or Inspector Clouseau Until we meet again and the case is sol-ved, Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 17, 2006 21:12:07 GMT -6
What Bell says is: "A portion of the sergeant's scalp lay near him, but the greater part was gone; through his head a rifle-ball had passed, and a blow from the tomahawk had laid his brain open above his left eye; the nose was slit up, and his throat was cut from ear to ear; seven arrows were standing in different parts of his naked body; the breast was laid open, so as to expose the heart; and the arm, that had doubtless done its work against the red-skins, was hacked to the bone; his legs, from the hip to the knee, lay open with horrible gashes, and from the knee to the foot they had cut the flesh with their knives."
So the death-wounds were to the head; though from the look of the blood, he could still have been alive (if only just) when his throat was cut. The arrows must all have been post-mortem, after he was stripped, or the Indians could never have got the clothes off.
And Billy, I'm sure you're right both about washing the body and about the colour differences. His face, hands, arms are deeply tanned, the rest of him not. It's reminiscent of Weir's "how white they look! how white!" on seeing the LBH bodies, isn't it ...
crzhrs, I know the picture you mean, but can't think where it is; could it be in the Camp collection? The officer is an infantry lieutenant, as I recall, but I can't remember his name, and I rather think the dead civilian is a hunter. (Now that picture does look posed; the attitude of the lieutenant could be straight out of a painting!)
With Wyllyams, it looks as if they've taken great trouble to recreate the original scene ... because isn't that dark blob a little to his left the "portion of the sergeant's scalp [that] lay near him"? (Though in the engraving, it appears to be by his right elbow.)
The photo has five arrows; the engraving has six; Bell says seven. The mystery continues!
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 18, 2006 0:01:29 GMT -6
Elisabeth and crzhrs,
I thank that the other photo that you are referring to shows the body of Ralph Morrison, a hunter, with Lt Philip Reade, 3rd Infantry, and John O Austin, a scout, kneeling behind him. This is supposed to have been taken by William Soule near Fort Dodge, Kansa, on 7th December 1868 (see Nye 'Plains Indian Raiders' pp.266-267).
As to the number of arrows in the Wyllyams pictures, I tentatively assumed that a foreshortened (and blurred!) sixth arrow is represented by the shadow above his right hand (fairly close to another arrow). If you look at the engraving, which is shown from another angle, this is where the 'extra' arrow appears to be.
I am not sure whether the engraving was simply based on the photograph with the angle shifted around to avoid outraging Victorian sensibilities, or whether it is based upon the sketches referred to in the Harper's article.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 18, 2006 3:12:17 GMT -6
That's the one! Here it is: www.photography-museum.com/soulelg.htmlI'm sure Victorian sensibilities came into it, especially for Harper's, which ladies would read. There's another reproduction of the photograph that turns up in many books where a convenient bit of scraping appears just in the genital area, again to spare sensibilities (though actually it makes it look worse -- as if he's been castrated as well!). But delicacy aside, do you think it's possible that the sketches were made at the scene -- from "life", as it were -- rather than from the photo? Two things that would support that are (1) the extra arrow, and (2) the apparent change in the placement of the portion of scalp ... Bell would then have had his own and Calhoun's sketches to refer to when recreating the scene back at Fort Wallace. Harper's presumably had the photo to go on, as well as the sketches, as the portraiture of the face is so accurate. Hmmm. More that we don't know: the mechanics of all this. Bell says he sends the photo to "the authorities" in Washington. General Wright, with the survey party, is the one who reports the Barnitz fight to the press. Theodore R. Davis, of Harper's, arrives at Wallace with Custer's party shortly thereafter -- but I think after the survey party has left. Were the sketches left behind at Fort Wallace? Or had someone made copies of them? In either of which cases Davis could have used them for Harper's. Or did Bell send them to the press as well as 'the authorities"? Since Bell was sketching everything else he saw on the trip, it seems unlikely he'd have parted with his original sketches -- though the fact that he uses the Harper's version for his book perhaps contradicts that. Major Calhoun might have left his with Keogh, I suppose; they were on friendly enough terms for Calhoun to have borrowed Keogh's "brigandish cavalry hat" for the fight on the 22nd. [Bell, p. 55.] The photo itself isn't a problem, of course, as he could have printed off any number of copies. We know that Keogh sent one copy to his brother [Convis, The Honor of Arms, p. 64]; he may well have kept another, as D. F. Barry later puts out a print of a print of it under his own name, and must have got it from some 7th Cavalry source, Keogh being the likeliest. It's not hard to imagine that many others present may well have asked for copies, to show the folks back home what they were up against. So, plenty floating around. It's how the sketches got to Harper's that raises questions. Via Davis? Or via someone -- Bell himself? or an army source? -- deliberately leaking them to the press to stir things up? Interesting to know ...
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 18, 2006 5:23:35 GMT -6
Elisabeth and crzhrs, I thank that the other photo that you are referring to shows the body of Ralph Morrison, a hunter, with Lt Philip Reade, 3rd Infantry, and John O Austin, a scout, kneeling behind him. This is supposed to have been taken by William Soule near Fort Dodge, Kansa, on 7th December 1868 (see Nye 'Plains Indian Raiders' pp.266-267). Gary There is an R. Morrison's grave listed under the Ft. Dodge interments, p. 49, line 75. That entry indicates date of death November 19, 1868. The next time I am at the archives or Leavenworth I will look at the Ft. Dodge post returns to see if the incident is mentioned. Billy
|
|
|
Post by Scout on May 18, 2006 5:40:52 GMT -6
You know, photographers during the civil war use to drag corpses around for posing. Some photographer may have been stuck the arrows into the body later...a possibilty. As far as the blood...his clothes were probably pretty saturated and absorbed with blood and when he was undressed it gives the appearance of having been cleaned. I have several copies of the photo in books and a close inspection with a magnfying glass shows several of the arrows are inked in...not necssarily faked but high lighted.
I have also seen drawings taken from the photo that have more arrows than the photo has.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 18, 2006 6:42:23 GMT -6
And then we have CSS using photos of dead CW soldiers giving the impression that they were the dead & mutilated killed by Indians.
A picture is worth a thousand words . . . but can be used to prove an agenda by misrepresenting who and what they represent.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 18, 2006 8:50:29 GMT -6
Two afterthoughts. Firstly, I became interested in the skirmishing around Fort Wallace in the Summer of 1867 whilst researching the indian side of Hancock's War. The information on indian participants in the fights at Fort Wallace is pretty scarce. I have however been able to put together the following meagre details of indians involved in the fight on 26th June 1867 (with selective references in brackets):
Bear With Feathers - Cheyenne Dog Soldier (Powell – People of the Sacred Mountain Vol.1, p.486)
Big Moccasin - Cheyenne. Dog Soldier? (Powell – People of the Sacred Mountain Vol.1, p.486 and Hyde – Life of George Bent pp.275-276)
Charley Bent - mixed race Cheyenne / American. Definitely with the Dog Soldiers (Halaas & Masich – Halfbreed p.223)
Long Chin - Cheyenne Dog Soldier (Powell – People of the Sacred Mountain Vol.1, p.486 and Hyde – Life of George Bent pp.275-276)
‘A Sioux’ - ie not Roman Nose; presumably an Oglala? (Hyde – Life of George Bent pp.275-276)
+ about 200 others - Cheyenne Dog Soldiers/Oglalas? (Hyde – Life of George Bent pp.275-276 and Utley – Life in Custer’s Cavalry pp.62-79)
The contemporary reports wrongly stated that Roman Nose had been killed in the skirmish. Pawnee Killer was of course involved in the fighting that Summer, but I think that he may have been too far away to have travelled to Fort Wallace in late June. Any thoughts, additional information or sources will be gratefully received.
Secondly, back to Fred. I believe that a tattoo was cut from his chest after he was killed. Colin Taylor's 'The Warriors of the Plains' (pp.90-93) has an account of the fight and quotes Bell extensively. There is also a photograph of the tattoo scalp which is described as being in the collection of the Paul Dyk foundation. I presume that this is the same collection that was recently acquired by the Buffalo Bill Historical Center.
Gary
|
|